↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review of effectiveness of universal self-regulation-based interventions and their effects on distal health and social outcomes in children and adolescents: review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Systematic review of effectiveness of universal self-regulation-based interventions and their effects on distal health and social outcomes in children and adolescents: review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0570-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anuja Pandey, Daniel Hale, Anne-Lise Goddings, Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, Russell Viner

Abstract

Growing evidence suggests that childhood and adolescence self-regulation contributes to multiple health, educational and social outcomes. Considering the potential impact of self-regulation skills on improved life chances in conjunction with evidence suggesting that self-regulation can be modified by interventions, there is a need to identify interventions which are most effective in improving childhood and adolescence self-regulation. The present systematic review was designed to determine the effectiveness of universal interventions focused on enhancing the self-regulation of children and adolescents. As secondary outcomes, we will also examine the effectiveness of such interventions on distal health and social outcomes. Eligible studies include randomised controlled trials (including cluster randomised trials) reporting on universal interventions designed to improve self-regulation in childhood and adolescence (age 0-19 years). The following databases will be searched for peer-reviewed publications using an iterative search strategy: Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, ERIC, CINAHL Plus, British Education Index, Child Development & Adolescent Studies and CENTRAL without applying language or date filters. Additionally, reference lists and citations of included studies will be searched for eligible studies. A 10% proportion of the total titles and abstracts will be randomly selected and screened independently by two reviewers (AP and DH). Results will be compared to ensure less than 5% discrepancy, followed by screening of all results by one reviewer (AP). Full-text review and data collection will be independently performed by two reviewers. Any discrepancies will be solved by mutual discussion, and if unresolved, a third reviewer (RV) will be consulted. Meta-analysis will be conducted to quantify trial effects, if the data is sufficiently homogenous to allow quantitative synthesis. Otherwise, results will be described narratively. The evidence derived from the systematic review will strengthen the evidence base to inform planning of effective interventions targeting self-regulation skills in childhood and adolescence. This will benefit policy makers, academicians, researchers, health professionals, and also, young people who will benefit from policy and interventions informed by this review. CRD42016047661 .

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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 22%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 12 24%

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 24 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,612,253
of 12,184,158 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#734
of 934 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,440
of 264,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#22
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,184,158 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 934 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 264,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.