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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A European Research Agenda for Somatic Symptom Disorders, Bodily Distress Disorders, and Functional Disorders: Results of an Estimate-Talk-Estimate Delphi Expert Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychiatry, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00151 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christina M. van der Feltz-Cornelis, Iman Elfeddali, Ursula Werneke, Ulrik F. Malt, Omer Van den Bergh, Rainer Schaefert, Willem J. Kop, Antonio Lobo, Michael Sharpe, Wolfgang Söllner, Bernd Löwe |
| Abstract |
Background: Somatic Symptom Disorders (SSD), Bodily Distress Disorders (BDD) and functional disorders (FD) are associated with high medical and societal costs and pose a substantial challenge to the population and health policy of Europe. To meet this challenge, a specific research agenda is needed as one of the cornerstones of sustainable mental health research and health policy for SSD, BDD, and FD in Europe. Aim: To identify the main challenges and research priorities concerning SSD, BDD, and FD from a European perspective. Methods: Delphi study conducted from July 2016 until October 2017 in 3 rounds with 3 workshop meetings and 3 online surveys, involving 75 experts and 21 European countries. EURONET-SOMA and the European Association of Psychosomatic Medicine (EAPM) hosted the meetings. Results: Eight research priorities were identified: (1) Assessment of diagnostic profiles relevant to course and treatment outcome. (2) Development and evaluation of new, effective interventions. (3) Validation studies on questionnaires or semi-structured interviews that assess chronic medical conditions in this context. (4) Research into patients preferences for diagnosis and treatment. (5) Development of new methodologic designs to identify and explore mediators and moderators of clinical course and treatment outcomes (6). Translational research exploring how psychological and somatic symptoms develop from somatic conditions and biological and behavioral pathogenic factors. (7) Development of new, effective interventions to personalize treatment. (8) Implementation studies of treatment interventions in different settings, such as primary care, occupational care, general hospital and specialty mental health settings. The general public and policymakers will benefit from the development of new, effective, personalized interventions for SSD, BDD, and FD, that will be enhanced by translational research, as well as from the outcomes of research into patient involvement, GP-patient communication, consultation-liaison models and implementation. Conclusion: Funding for this research agenda, targeting these challenges in coordinated research networks such as EURONET-SOMA and EAPM, and systematically allocating resources by policymakers to this critical area in mental and physical well-being is urgently needed to improve efficacy and impact for diagnosis and treatment of SSD, BDD, and FD across Europe. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 36% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Ireland | 1 | 7% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 79% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 116 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 16% |
| Professor | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 21% |
| Unknown | 28 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 31% |
| Psychology | 17 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 32 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 18 October 2023.
All research outputs
#5,069,237
of 25,176,926 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#2,658
of 12,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,082
of 333,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#91
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,176,926 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,383 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 333,590 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 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.