↓ Skip to main content

Mental health and social service needs for mental health service users in Japan: a cross-sectional survey of client- and staff-perceived needs

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Mental Health Systems, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Mental health and social service needs for mental health service users in Japan: a cross-sectional survey of client- and staff-perceived needs
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Systems, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13033-015-0009-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuki Miyamoto, Rieko Hashimoto-Koichi, Miki Akiyama, Soichi Takamura

Abstract

The appropriate utilization of community services by people with mental health difficulties is becoming increasingly important in Japan. The aim of the present study was to describe service needs, as perceived by people with mental health difficulties living in the community and their service providers. We analyzed the difference between two necessity ratings using paired data in order to determine implications related to needs assessment for mental health services. This cross-sectional study used two self-reported questionnaires, with one questionnaire administered to mental health service users living in the community and another questionnaire to staff members providing services to those users at community service facilities. The study was conducted in psychiatric social rehabilitation facilities for people with mental health difficulties in Japan. The paired client and staff responses rated needs for each kind of mental health and social service independently. The 19 services listed in the questionnaire included counseling and healthcare, housing, renting, daily living, and employment. Overall, 246 individuals with mental health difficulties were asked to participate in this study, and after excluding invalid responses, 188 client-staff response dyads (76.4% of recruited people, 83.6% of people who gave consent) were analyzed in this study. A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test was used to compare the perceived needs, and weighted and unweighted Kappa statistics were calculated to assess rating agreement within client-staff dyads. Over 75% of participants in our study, who were people with mental health difficulties living in the community, regarded each type of mental health service as "somewhat necessary," or "absolutely necessary" to live in their community. Most clients and staff rated healthcare facilities with 24/7 crisis consultation services as necessary. Agreement between client and staff ratings of perceived needs for services was low (Kappa = .02 to .26). Services regarding housing, renting a place to live, and advocacy had the same tendency in that clients perceived a higher need when compared to staff perceptions (p < .01). It is essential for the service providers to identify the services that each user needs, engage in dialogue, and involve clients in service planning and development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 23 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 September 2016.
All research outputs
#13,939,932
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#482
of 718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,442
of 264,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 264,200 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.