↓ Skip to main content

Translating mental health diagnostic and symptom terminology to train health workers and engage patients in cross-cultural, non-English speaking populations

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Mental Health Systems, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Translating mental health diagnostic and symptom terminology to train health workers and engage patients in cross-cultural, non-English speaking populations
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Systems, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13033-017-0170-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bibhav Acharya, Madhur Basnet, Pragya Rimal, David Citrin, Soniya Hirachan, Sikhar Swar, Poshan Thapa, Jagadamba Pandit, Rajeev Pokharel, Brandon Kohrt

Abstract

Although there are guidelines for transcultural adaptation and validation of psychometric tools, similar resources do not exist for translation of diagnostic and symptom terminology used by health professionals to communicate with one another, their patients, and the public. The issue of translation is particularly salient when working with underserved, non-English speaking populations in high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries. As clinicians, researchers, and educators working in cross-cultural settings, we present four recommendations to avoid common pitfalls in these settings. We demonstrate the need for: (1) harmonization of terminology among clinicians, educators of health professionals, and health policymakers; (2) distinction in terminology used among health professionals and that used for communication with patients, families, and the lay public; (3) linkage of symptom assessment with functional assessment; and (4) establishment of a culture of evaluating communication and terminology for continued improvement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 12 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 April 2020.
All research outputs
#6,833,690
of 25,381,151 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#384
of 759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,736
of 328,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#7
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 328,878 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 71% of its contemporaries.