↓ Skip to main content

Offending, custody and opioid substitution therapy treatment utilisation among opioid-dependent people in contact with the criminal justice system: comparison of Indigenous and non-Indigenous…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2014
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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Offending, custody and opioid substitution therapy treatment utilisation among opioid-dependent people in contact with the criminal justice system: comparison of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-14-920
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natasa Gisev, Amy Gibson, Sarah Larney, Jo Kimber, Megan Williams, Anton Clifford, Michael Doyle, Lucy Burns, Tony Butler, Don J Weatherburn, Louisa Degenhardt

Abstract

Although Indigenous Australians are over-represented among heroin users, there has been no study examining offending, time in custody, and opioid substitution therapy (OST) treatment utilisation among Indigenous opioid-dependent (including heroin) people at the population level, nor comparing these to non-Indigenous opioid-dependent people. The aims of this study were to compare the nature and types of charges, time in custody and OST treatment utilisation between opioid-dependent Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in contact with the criminal justice system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 23 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Psychology 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 27 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 24 October 2014.
All research outputs
#4,480,998
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,925
of 14,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,839
of 238,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#85
of 281 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,835 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 238,865 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 281 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 69% of its contemporaries.