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 |
Building system capacity for the integration of mental health at the level of primary care in Tunisia: a study protocol in global mental health
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-017-1992-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jessica Spagnolo, François Champagne, Nicole Leduc, Myra Piat, Wahid Melki, Fatma Charfi, Marc Laporta |
| Abstract |
In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), addressing the high prevalence of mental disorders is a challenge given the limited number and unequal distribution of specialists, as well as scarce resources allocated to mental health. The Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) and its accompanying Intervention Guide (IG), developed by the World Health Organization (WHO), aim to address this challenge by training non-specialists such as general practitioners (GPs) in mental health care. This trial aims to implement and evaluate an adapted version of the mhGAP-IG (version 1.0) offered to GPs in 2 governorates of Tunisia (i.e., Tunis and Sousse), in order to uncover important information regarding implementation process and study design before country-wide implementation and evaluation. First, a systematic review will be conducted to explore types and effectiveness of mental health training programs offered to GPs around the world, with a specific focus on programs implemented and evaluated in LMICs. Second, a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the implemented training based on the mhGAP-IG (version 1.0). Third, multiple case study design will be used to explore how contextual factors impact the successful implementation of the training and desired outcomes. In Tunisia, an important need exists to further develop proximity health services and to address the growing mental health treatment gap. One solution is to train GPs in the detection, treatment, and management of mental health problems, given their strategic role in the healthcare system. This trial thus aims to implement and evaluate an adapted version of a training based on the mhGAP-IG (version 1.0) in Tunis and Sousse before country-wide implementation and evaluation. Several contributions are envisioned: adding to the growing evidence on the mhGAP and its accompanying guide, especially in French-speaking nations; building research capacity in Tunisia and more generally in LMICs by employing rigorous designs; evaluating an adapted version of the mhGAP-IG (version 1.0) on a sample of GPs; generating important information regarding implementation process and study design before country-wide implementation; and complimenting the trial results with implementation analysis, a priority in global mental health. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Greece | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 126 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 20% |
| Researcher | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 15% |
| Unknown | 34 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 20% |
| Psychology | 14 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 14% |
| Unknown | 35 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 February 2017.
All research outputs
#15,434,961
of 25,262,379 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,450
of 8,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,474
of 429,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#92
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,262,379 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 429,978 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.