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 |
Should screening for risk of gambling-related harm be undertaken in health, care and support settings? A systematic review of the international evidence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, May 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13722-021-00243-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lindsay Blank, Susan Baxter, Helen Buckley Woods, Elizabeth Goyder |
| Abstract |
Gambling-related harm is an increasing recognised problem internationally. Recent years have seen an explosion in opportunities to gamble, both in person and online. Health and other care settings have the potential to act as screening sites to identify and support gamblers who may be at high risk of experiencing gambling-related harm. This study aimed to identify interventions to screen for risk of gambling-related harm in the general population which may be delivered in health, care and support settings. Systematic review. Searches of key databases and grey sources since 2012 were undertaken in October 2019. Electronic database searches generated a total of 5826 unique hits. Nine studies published 2013-2019, along with thirteen grey literature documents met our eligibility criteria. The criteria were setting (health, care and support settings), participants (any attendee in help, care and support settings), interventions (screening to identify risk of harm from gambling behaviours) and outcome measures (gambling behaviours, service use). Three papers evaluating screening interventions delivered in general practice (repeat visits and written advice), mental health service (the use of screening tools to identify risk of harm), and substance abuse treatment (intensive outpatient treatment for substance use disorders or methadone maintenance) indicated evidence of potential effectiveness. Six papers supported the feasibility and acceptability of delivering interventions in various settings. Grey literature reports described the implementation of interventions such as training materials, and transfer of interventions developed for substance abuse populations by practitioners. Health, care and support services offer potentially important contexts in which to identify and offer support to people who are at risk of gambling related harm. Screening interventions appear feasible and acceptable in a range of community and healthcare settings for those at risk of gambling harm. Evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening in these populations should therefore be prioritised. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 2 | 25% |
| United States | 2 | 25% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 11 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 June 2021.
All research outputs
#3,383,191
of 25,392,582 outputs
Outputs from Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
#120
of 487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,745
of 460,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
#4
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,582 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 460,098 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.