↓ Skip to main content

Social networks of patients with psychosis: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, October 2015
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 (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
4 tweeters


37 Dimensions

Readers on

89 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.
Social networks of patients with psychosis: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Research Notes, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1528-7
Pubmed ID

Claudia Palumbo, Umberto Volpe, Aleksandra Matanov, Stefan Priebe, Domenico Giacco


Social networks are important for mental health outcomes as they can mobilise resources and help individuals to cope with social stressors. Individuals with psychosis may have specific difficulties in establishing and maintaining social relationships which impacts on their well-being and quality of life. There has been a growing interest in developing social network interventions for patients with psychotic disorders. A systematic literature review was conducted to investigate the size of social networks of patients with psychotic disorders, as well as their friendship networks. A systematic electronic search was carried out in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsychINFO databases using a combination of search terms relating to 'social network', 'friendship' and 'psychotic disorder'. The search identified 23 relevant papers. Out of them, 20 reported patient social network size. Four papers reported the mean number of friends in addition to whole network size, while three further papers focused exclusively on the number of friends. Findings varied substantially across the studies, with a weighted mean size of 11.7 individuals for whole social networks and 3.4 individuals for friendship networks. On average, 43.1 % of the whole social network was composed of family members, while friends accounted for 26.5 %. Studies assessing whole social network size and friendship networks of people with psychosis are difficult to compare as different concepts and methods of assessment were applied. The extent of the overlap between different social roles assessed in the networks was not always clear. Greater conceptual and methodological clarity is needed in order to help the development of effective strategies to increase social resources of patients with psychosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Japan 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 85 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 18%
Student > Master 16 18%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 13 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 38 43%
Social Sciences 11 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 14 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 November 2017.
All research outputs
of 15,709,277 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
of 3,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 255,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,709,277 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,446 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 255,055 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them