↓ Skip to main content

International training programs on eating disorders for professionals, caregivers, and the general public: A scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Eating Disorders, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
International training programs on eating disorders for professionals, caregivers, and the general public: A scoping review
Published in
Journal of Eating Disorders, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40337-015-0066-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Myra Piat, Alexis Pearson, Judith Sabetti, Howard Steiger, Mimi Israel, Shalini Lal

Abstract

This review identified and synthesized published training programs on eating disorders (ED) (anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa) for professionals, natural supporters of people with ED, or the public. A scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) framework was conducted. Four data bases were searched, for all years, and manual searches from three additional sources were also conducted. Experts on ED were consulted for validation of the identified studies. A narrative synthesis was performed. A total of 20 evaluation studies from five countries were identified, and reviewed in relation to 14 ED training programs. Characteristics of the training programs, and study characteristics, were highly diverse, as shown on Table 1 which compiles results from the charted data. Evaluations were equally divided between training for healthcare and education professionals (9), and training for families or other carers of people with ED (10). One study evaluated ED training for the general public. We found that training orientation varies with the interests and needs of different trainee groups. While most studies assessed trainee outcomes, future research needs to give greater consideration to patient perspectives, and to the relationship between training and evaluation approaches, improved knowledge, and better care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 17 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 16%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 18 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 08 April 2016.
All research outputs
#5,991,219
of 23,940,793 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Eating Disorders
#459
of 867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,195
of 267,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Eating Disorders
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,940,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 267,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.