↓ Skip to main content

The process of developing and implementing a telephone-based peer support program for postpartum depression: evidence from two randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
204 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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 process of developing and implementing a telephone-based peer support program for postpartum depression: evidence from two randomized controlled trials
Published in
Trials, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-131
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cindy-Lee Dennis

Abstract

A randomized controlled trial evaluated the effect of telephone-based peer support on preventing postpartum depression (PPD) among high-risk mothers. The results indicated that support provided by peer volunteers may be an effective preventative strategy. The purpose of this paper is to outline the process of developing, implementing, maintaining, and evaluating the peer support program that we used in this PPD prevention trial.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 204 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 204 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 12%
Researcher 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 16 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 46 23%
Unknown 43 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 61 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 13%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Unspecified 8 4%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 47 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 April 2014.
All research outputs
#18,371,293
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#4,745
of 5,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,306
of 226,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#70
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,850 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 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 226,127 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.