↓ Skip to main content

A population study comparing screening performance of prototypes for depression and anxiety with standard scales

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
A population study comparing screening performance of prototypes for depression and anxiety with standard scales
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-154
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Christensen, Philip J Batterham, Janie Busby Grant, Kathleen M Griffiths, Andrew J Mackinnon

Abstract

Screening instruments for mental disorders need to be short, engaging, and valid. Current screening instruments are usually questionnaire-based and may be opaque to the user. A prototype approach where individuals identify with a description of an individual with typical symptoms of depression, anxiety, social phobia or panic may be a shorter, faster and more acceptable method for screening. The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of four new prototype screeners for predicting depression and anxiety disorders and to compare their performance with existing scales.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Postgraduate 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 20%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 12 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 December 2011.
All research outputs
#9,508,615
of 12,373,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#874
of 1,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,775
of 216,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#69
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 216,584 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.