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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effectiveness of brief interventions as part of the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) model for reducing the nonmedical use of psychoactive substances: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-50 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew M Young, Adrienne Stevens, James Galipeau, Tyler Pirie, Chantelle Garritty, Kavita Singh, Fatemeh Yazdi, Mohammed Golfam, Misty Pratt, Lucy Turner, Amy Porath-Waller, Cheryl Arratoon, Nancy Haley, Karen Leslie, Rhoda Reardon, Beth Sproule, Jeremy Grimshaw, David Moher |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of brief interventions (BIs) as part of the Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) model for reducing the nonmedical use of psychoactive substances. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 33% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Portugal | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Unknown | 148 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 18% |
| Researcher | 26 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 31 | 21% |
| Unknown | 33 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 16% |
| Psychology | 20 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 13% |
| Unknown | 36 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 June 2014.
All research outputs
#6,778,426
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,232
of 1,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,787
of 226,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#14
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 226,407 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.