↓ Skip to main content

Simulating a Community Mental Health Service During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects of Clinician–Clinician Encounters, Clinician–Patient–Family Encounters, Symptom-Triggered Protective Behaviour, and…

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, February 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Simulating a Community Mental Health Service During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects of Clinician–Clinician Encounters, Clinician–Patient–Family Encounters, Symptom-Triggered Protective Behaviour, and Household Clustering
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, February 2021
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.620842
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rudolf N. Cardinal, Caroline E. Meiser-Stedman, David M. Christmas, Annabel C. Price, Chess Denman, Benjamin R. Underwood, Shanquan Chen, Soumya Banerjee, Simon R. White, Li Su, Tamsin J. Ford, Samuel R. Chamberlain, Catherine M. Walsh

Abstract

Objectives: Face-to-face healthcare, including psychiatric provision, must continue despite reduced interpersonal contact during the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus) pandemic. Community-based services might use domiciliary visits, consultations in healthcare settings, or remote consultations. Services might also alter direct contact between clinicians. We examined the effects of appointment types and clinician-clinician encounters upon infection rates. Design: Computer simulation. Methods: We modelled a COVID-19-like disease in a hypothetical community healthcare team, their patients, and patients' household contacts (family). In one condition, clinicians met patients and briefly met family (e.g., home visit or collateral history). In another, patients attended alone (e.g., clinic visit), segregated from each other. In another, face-to-face contact was eliminated (e.g., videoconferencing). We also varied clinician-clinician contact; baseline and ongoing "external" infection rates; whether overt symptoms reduced transmission risk behaviourally (e.g., via personal protective equipment, PPE); and household clustering. Results: Service organisation had minimal effects on whole-population infection under our assumptions but materially affected clinician infection. Appointment type and inter-clinician contact had greater effects at low external infection rates and without a behavioural symptom response. Clustering magnified the effect of appointment type. We discuss infection control and other factors affecting appointment choice and team organisation. Conclusions: Distancing between clinicians can have significant effects on team infection. Loss of clinicians to infection likely has an adverse impact on care, not modelled here. Appointments must account for clinical necessity as well as infection control. Interventions to reduce transmission risk can synergize, arguing for maximal distancing and behavioural measures (e.g., PPE) consistent with safe care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 25%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 3 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 18 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Psychology 4 7%
Engineering 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 17 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 15 March 2021.
All research outputs
#3,600,184
of 25,619,480 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#2,121
of 12,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,801
of 452,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#126
of 500 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,619,480 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 12,855 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 83% 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 452,604 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 500 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.