↓ Skip to main content

Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
138 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007297.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Duncan E, Best C, Hagen S, Duncan, Edward, Best, Catherine, Hagen, Suzanne

Abstract

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life course. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual, their family and society. Increasingly partnership models of mental health care have been advocated and enshrined in international healthcare policy. Shared decision making is one such partnership approach. Shared decision making is a form of patient-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision. This is advocated on the basis that patients have a right to self-determination and also in the expectation that it will increase treatment adherence.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Unknown 88 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 35%
Student > Master 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 5 5%
Other 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 33%
Psychology 18 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 18%
Social Sciences 11 12%
Unspecified 9 10%
Other 7 8%

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 May 2016.
All research outputs
#825,871
of 10,696,187 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,982
of 9,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,543
of 251,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#103
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,696,187 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,034 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 251,666 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 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 58% of its contemporaries.