↓ Skip to main content

An intervention to improve mental health care for conflict-affected forced migrants in low-resource primary care settings: a WHO MhGAP-based pilot study in Sri Lanka (COM-GAP study)

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An intervention to improve mental health care for conflict-affected forced migrants in low-resource primary care settings: a WHO MhGAP-based pilot study in Sri Lanka (COM-GAP study)
Published in
Trials, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-423
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chesmal Siriwardhana, Anushka Adikari, Tine Van Bortel, Paul McCrone, Athula Sumathipala

Abstract

Inadequacy in mental health care in low and middle income countries has been an important contributor to the rising global burden of disease. The treatment gap is salient in resource-poor settings, especially when providing care for conflict-affected forced migrant populations. Primary care is often the only available service option for the majority of forced migrants, and integration of mental health into primary care is a difficult task. The proposed pilot study aims to explore the feasibility of integrating mental health care into primary care by providing training to primary care practitioners serving displaced populations, in order to improve identification, treatment, and referral of patients with common mental disorders via the World Health Organization Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Uganda 1 <1%
Unknown 158 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 42 26%
Student > Master 32 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Other 11 7%
Other 34 21%
Unknown 17 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 30%
Social Sciences 30 19%
Psychology 27 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 3%
Other 8 5%
Unknown 26 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2017.
All research outputs
#1,021,320
of 12,547,386 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#393
of 3,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,527
of 243,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#20
of 215 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,547,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 243,762 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 215 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.