↓ Skip to main content

Neuroimaging in mental health care: voices in translation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
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
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Neuroimaging in mental health care: voices in translation
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00293
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily L. Borgelt, Daniel Z. Buchman, Judy Illes

Abstract

Images of brain function, popularly called "neuroimages," have become a mainstay of contemporary communication about neuroscience and mental health. Paralleling media coverage of neuroimaging research and the high visibility of clinics selling scans is pressure from sponsors to move basic research about brain function along the translational pathway. Indeed, neuroimaging may offer benefits to mental health care: early or tailored intervention, opportunities for education and planning, and access to resources afforded by objectification of disorder. However, risks of premature technology transfer, such as misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and increased stigmatization, could compromise patient care. The insights of stakeholder groups about neuroimaging for mental health care are a largely untapped resource of information and guidance for translational efforts. We argue that the insights of key stakeholders-including researchers, healthcare providers, patients, and families-have an essential role to play upstream in professional, critical, and ethical discourse surrounding neuroimaging in mental health. Here we integrate previously orthogonal lines of inquiry involving stakeholder research to describe the translational landscape as well as challenges on its horizon.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 3%
China 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 57 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Professor 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 17 27%
Unknown 10 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 18%
Social Sciences 8 13%
Psychology 8 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 14 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 November 2012.
All research outputs
#12,802,219
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,605
of 7,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,619
of 244,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#154
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,118 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 244,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.