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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cost-effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing in child welfare: a controlled study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-018-5770-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sharon Dijkstra, Hanneke E. Creemers, Francisca J. A. van Steensel, Maja Deković, Geert Jan J. M. Stams, Jessica J. Asscher |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to examine the short- and long term (cost-) effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing (FGC) compared to care as usual (CAU) in terms of improved child safety, empowerment and social support. A subgroup of a larger randomized controlled trial, comprising 69 families in child welfare (experimental group: n = 46; control group: n = 23), was included. No additional effects of FGC on child safety, social support and only short-term positive effects on empowerment were found. There were no differences in costs between FGC and CAU. The chance for FGC to be cost-effective was small. For families who refused FGC, the FGC approach was more cost-effective than CAU, whereas it was less cost-effective for families that prepared or completed FGC. Overall, FGC is not (cost-)effective in improving child safety, empowerment and social support, but cost-effectiveness varies at different levels of FGC-completion. Dutch Trial Register number NTR4320 . Registered 17 December 2013. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 21 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 10 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
| Psychology | 4 | 7% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 43% |
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 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
#5,829,891
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,830
of 15,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,355
of 326,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#183
of 333 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 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 15,063 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 326,642 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 333 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.