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 |
Better together? a naturalistic qualitative study of inter-professional working in collaborative care for co-morbid depression and physical health problems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-8-110 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah E Knowles, Carolyn Chew-Graham, Nia Coupe, Isabel Adeyemi, Chris Keyworth, Harish Thampy, Peter A Coventry |
| Abstract |
Mental-physical multi-morbidities pose challenges for primary care services that traditionally focus on single diseases. Collaborative care models encourage inter-professional working to deliver better care for patients with multiple chronic conditions, such as depression and long-term physical health problems. Successive trials from the United States have shown that collaborative care effectively improves depression outcomes, even in people with long-term conditions (LTCs), but little is known about how to implement collaborative care in the United Kingdom. The aim of the study was to explore the extent to which collaborative care was implemented in a naturalistic National Health Service setting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 | 10 | 63% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 56% |
| Scientists | 4 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 186 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 18% |
| Researcher | 28 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 41 | 22% |
| Unknown | 31 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 27% |
| Psychology | 36 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 9% |
| Unknown | 33 | 17% |
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 14 January 2024.
All research outputs
#3,195,539
of 25,365,817 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#658
of 1,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,145
of 209,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#14
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,365,817 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 1,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 209,705 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 67% of its contemporaries.