↓ Skip to main content

Pediatric eMental healthcare technologies: a systematic review of implementation foci in research studies, and government and organizational documents

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, June 2017
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
180 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
Pediatric eMental healthcare technologies: a systematic review of implementation foci in research studies, and government and organizational documents
Published in
Implementation Science, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0608-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole D. Gehring, Patrick McGrath, Lori Wozney, Amir Soleimani, Kathryn Bennett, Lisa Hartling, Anna Huguet, Michele P. Dyson, Amanda S. Newton

Abstract

Researchers, healthcare planners, and policymakers convey a sense of urgency in using eMental healthcare technologies to improve pediatric mental healthcare availability and access. Yet, different stakeholders may focus on different aspects of implementation. We conducted a systematic review to identify implementation foci in research studies and government/organizational documents for eMental healthcare technologies for pediatric mental healthcare. A search of eleven electronic databases and grey literature was conducted. We included research studies and documents from organization and government websites if the focus included eMental healthcare technology for children/adolescents (0-18 years), and implementation was studied and reported (research studies) or goals/recommendations regarding implementation were made (documents). We assessed study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and document quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II. Implementation information was grouped according to Proctor and colleagues' implementation outcomes-acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability-and grouped separately for studies and documents. Twenty research studies and nine government/organizational documents met eligibility criteria. These articles represented implementation of eMental healthcare technologies in the USA (14 studies), United Kingdom (2 documents, 3 studies), Canada (2 documents, 1 study), Australia (4 documents, 1 study), New Zealand (1 study), and the Netherlands (1 document). The quality of research studies was excellent (n = 11), good (n = 6), and poor (n = 1). These eMental health studies focused on the acceptability (70%, n = 14) and appropriateness (50%, n = 10) of eMental healthcare technologies to users and mental healthcare professionals. The quality of government and organizational documents was high (n = 2), medium (n = 6), and low (n = 1). These documents focused on cost (100%, n = 9), penetration (89%, n = 8), feasibility (78%, n = 7), and sustainability (67%, n = 6) of implementing eMental healthcare technology. To date, research studies have largely focused on acceptability and appropriateness, while government/organizational documents state goals and recommendations regarding costs, feasibility, and sustainability of eMental healthcare technologies. These differences suggest that the research evidence available for pediatric eMental healthcare technologies does not reflect the focus of governments and organizations. Partnerships between researchers, healthcare planners, and policymakers may help to align implementation research with policy development, decision-making, and funding foci.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 180 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 25 14%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Master 18 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 10%
Other 29 16%
Unknown 43 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 17%
Psychology 26 14%
Social Sciences 16 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 6%
Computer Science 8 4%
Other 33 18%
Unknown 55 31%

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 23 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,706,477
of 21,470,856 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#638
of 1,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,784
of 285,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,470,856 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 1,676 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 285,572 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.