↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of combining systematic identification and treatment of co-morbid major depression for people with chronic diseases: the example of cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Medicine, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness of combining systematic identification and treatment of co-morbid major depression for people with chronic diseases: the example of cancer
Published in
Psychological Medicine, August 2013
DOI 10.1017/s0033291713002079
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Walker, J. Walker, G. Richardson, S. Palmer, Q. Wu, S. Gilbody, P. Martin, C. Holm Hansen, A. Sawhney, G. Murray, M. Sculpher, M. Sharpe

Abstract

Co-morbid major depression occurs in approximately 10% of people suffering from a chronic medical condition such as cancer. Systematic integrated management that includes both identification and treatment has been advocated. However, we lack information on the cost-effectiveness of this combined approach, as published evaluations have focused solely on the systematic (collaborative care) treatment stage. We therefore aimed to use the best available evidence to estimate the cost-effectiveness of systematic integrated management (both identification and treatment) compared with usual practice, for patients attending specialist cancer clinics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 51 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Unspecified 8 14%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 16 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 27%
Unspecified 12 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 18%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 9%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Other 10 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 April 2015.
All research outputs
#9,543,358
of 12,419,913 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Medicine
#2,798
of 3,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,319
of 192,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Medicine
#64
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,419,913 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,474 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 192,172 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.