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 |
The psychological problems and related influential factors of left-behind adolescents (LBA) in Hunan, China: a cross sectional study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12939-017-0639-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ye Man, Lv Mengmeng, Li Lezhi, Mao Ting, Zhang Jingping |
| Abstract |
Due to lack of companionship of parents, compared with non left behind children, left behind children (LBC) suffer from more psychological problems compared with children live with their parents. The aim of this study was to explore the mental health status and the relationship among psychological problems and the related factors of LBC. Adopting delaminating-random-group sampling and using region, county, village (town) as sampling framework, we utilized Demographic Data Recording Form, Adolescent Self-Rating Life Events Check List, Scale of APGAR, Perceived Social Support Scale, Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, Self-Esteem Scale and Scale of Mental Health for Chinese Middle-school Student to assess 1309 left behind child in junior middle school students' mental health in Hunan. Statistic description, Structural equation model was adopted to analyze the data. There was a significant difference in score of psychological problems between LBC and non-LBC(F = 18.224, P<0.000). Life event was the major factor(r = .487) that affected psychological problems (path coefficient, PC = 0.08) directly and affect psychological problems indirectly through affecting passive coping (PC = 0.01)and family functioning(PC = 0.02); family functioning impacted psychological problems indirectly through affecting social support (PC = 4.89) and self-esteem (PC = 0.10); social support (PC = -0.02), passive coping (PC =0.07) and active coping PC = -0.04) affected psychological problems directly. Psychoticism (P) (PC = 0.11), Neuroticism (N) influenced psychological problems of LBC both directly (PC = 0.04) and indirectly through affecting self-esteem (PC: P:-1.87; N: -0.83), while Extraversion/Introversion (E) (PC = 0.21) only impact psychological problems indirectly through self-esteem. Altogether, these variables accounted for 50.2% of total variance of psychological problems (F = 130.470, P = 0.000) for LBC. In this research we proved that LBC have more sever psychological problems than non-LBC. We also identified the direct and indirect influential factors of psychological problems of LBC. The findings had important implications for prevention policies and interventions to promote mental health of LBC. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 97 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 19% |
| Unknown | 31 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 25 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 36 | 37% |
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 17 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,954,297
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,499
of 1,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,353
of 316,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#51
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 316,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.