↓ 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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
194 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
373 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

Edward Duncan, Catherine Best, Suzanne Hagen

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 2%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Spain 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 354 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 75 20%
Student > Master 55 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 14%
Student > Bachelor 33 9%
Student > Postgraduate 25 7%
Other 72 19%
Unknown 60 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 25%
Psychology 75 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 56 15%
Social Sciences 32 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Other 33 9%
Unknown 76 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 14 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,247,729
of 15,985,155 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,325
of 11,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,470
of 307,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#91
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,985,155 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 11,349 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 307,045 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 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 63% of its contemporaries.