↓ Skip to main content

The Saving and Empowering Young Lives in Europe (SEYLE) Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT): methodological issues and participant characteristics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2013
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 (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
251 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
The Saving and Empowering Young Lives in Europe (SEYLE) Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT): methodological issues and participant characteristics
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-13-479
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vladimir Carli, Camilla Wasserman, Danuta Wasserman, Marco Sarchiapone, Alan Apter, Judit Balazs, Julio Bobes, Romuald Brunner, Paul Corcoran, Doina Cosman, Francis Guillemin, Christian Haring, Michael Kaess, Jean Pierre Kahn, Helen Keeley, Agnes Keresztény, Miriam Iosue, Ursa Mars, George Musa, Bogdan Nemes, Vita Postuvan, Stella Reiter-Theil, Pilar Saiz, Peeter Varnik, Airi Varnik, Christina W Hoven

Abstract

Mental health problems and risk behaviours among young people are of great public health concern. Consequently, within the VII Framework Programme, the European Commission funded the Saving and Empowering Young Lives in Europe (SEYLE) project. This Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) was conducted in eleven European countries, with Sweden as the coordinating centre, and was designed to identify an effective way to promote mental health and reduce suicidality and risk taking behaviours among adolescents.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 251 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 245 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 43 17%
Student > Master 37 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 7%
Other 36 14%
Unknown 65 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 55 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 45 18%
Social Sciences 31 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 5%
Unspecified 6 2%
Other 23 9%
Unknown 78 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 June 2021.
All research outputs
#4,989,091
of 24,761,242 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,585
of 16,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,871
of 199,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#83
of 288 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,761,242 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 16,406 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 199,301 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 288 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.