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 |
Study protocol: the JEU cohort study – transversal multiaxial evaluation and 5-year follow-up of a cohort of French gamblers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12888-014-0226-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gaëlle Challet-Bouju, Jean-Benoit Hardouin, Jean-Luc Vénisse, Lucia Romo, Marc Valleur, David Magalon, Mélina Fatséas, Isabelle Chéreau-Boudet, Mohamed-Ali Gorsane, Marie Grall-Bronnec |
| Abstract |
There is abundant literature on how to distinguish problem gambling (PG) from social gambling, but there are very few studies of the long-term evolution of gambling practice. As a consequence, the correlates of key state changes in the gambling trajectory are still unknown. The objective of the JEU cohort study is to identify the determinants of key state changes in the gambling practice, such as the emergence of a gambling problem, natural recovery from a gambling problem, resolution of a gambling problem with intermediate care intervention, relapses or care recourse. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| France | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 16% |
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 31 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 27 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unknown | 40 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 September 2015.
All research outputs
#13,716,141
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,883
of 4,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,497
of 235,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#40
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. 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 235,611 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.