↓ Skip to main content

Women's evaluation of abuse and violence care in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial (weave)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
223 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Women's evaluation of abuse and violence care in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial (weave)
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-10-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kelsey L Hegarty, Jane M Gunn, Lorna J O'Doherty, Angela Taft, Patty Chondros, Gene Feder, Jill Astbury, Stephanie Brown

Abstract

Intimate partner abuse (IPA) is a major public health problem with serious implications for the physical and psychosocial wellbeing of women, particularly women of child-bearing age. It is a common, hidden problem in general practice and has been under-researched in this setting. Opportunities for early intervention and support in primary care need to be investigated given the frequency of contact women have with general practice. Despite the high prevalence and health consequences of abuse, there is insufficient evidence for screening in primary care settings. Furthermore, there is little rigorous evidence to guide general practitioners (GPs) in responding to women identified as experiencing partner abuse. This paper describes the design of a trial of a general practice-based intervention consisting of screening for fear of partner with feedback to GPs, training for GPs, brief counselling for women and minimal practice organisational change. It examines the effect on women's quality of life, mental health and safety behaviours.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 218 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 15%
Student > Bachelor 33 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 11%
Student > Master 21 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 9%
Other 35 16%
Unknown 55 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 44 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 42 19%
Social Sciences 23 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 21 9%
Unknown 64 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 November 2015.
All research outputs
#2,786,487
of 22,707,247 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,196
of 14,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,937
of 163,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#19
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,707,247 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,783 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. 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 163,523 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 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.