↓ Skip to main content

No personalization without participation: on the active contribution of psychiatric patients to the development of a mobile application for mental health

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2013
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 (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 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
No personalization without participation: on the active contribution of psychiatric patients to the development of a mobile application for mental health
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-13-78
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean-François Pelletier, Michael Rowe, Nathe François, Julie Bordeleau, Sonia Lupien

Abstract

Despite the increasing pervasiveness of mobile computational technologies, knowledge about psychiatric patients' preferences regarding the design and utility of mobile applications is very poor. This paper reports on a pilot-study that involved 120 psychiatric patients in the development of a mobile application (app) that is being used for data entry into the Signature Project data bank at the Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal (IUSMM), Canada. Participants were invited to comment on the 'look and feel' of the Signature App. Their input also extended the procedures for data collection. These suggestions may contribute to increased mental health literacy and empowerment of persons with mental illness receiving services at the IUSMM.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 1%
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 158 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 20%
Student > Master 31 18%
Researcher 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 35 21%
Unknown 31 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 39 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 17%
Social Sciences 17 10%
Computer Science 15 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 38 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 09 August 2013.
All research outputs
#3,387,638
of 21,879,456 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#283
of 1,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,839
of 176,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,879,456 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,924 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 176,780 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them