↓ Skip to main content

A ‘Grantathon’ model to mentor new investigators in mental health research

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
A ‘Grantathon’ model to mentor new investigators in mental health research
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0254-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Hawk, Vishwajit Nimgaonkar, Triptish Bhatia, Jaspreet S. Brar, Wafaa Abdelhakim Elbahaey, James E. Egan, Prasad Konasale, Supriya Kumar, Margaret C. McDonald, Ravinder Singh, Soumya Swaminathan, Joel Wood, Smita N. Deshpande

Abstract

There is a critical gap between needs and available resources for mental health treatment across the world, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In countries committed to increasing resources to address these needs it is important to conduct research, not only to assess the depth of mental health needs and the current provision of public and private mental health services, but also to examine implementation methods and evaluate mental health approaches to determine which methods are most effective in local contexts. However, research resources in many LMICs are inadequate, largely because conventional research training is time-consuming and expensive. Adapting a hackathon model may be a feasible method of increasing capacity for mental health services research in resource-poor countries. To explore the feasibility of this approach, we developed a 'grantathon', i.e. a research training workshop, to build capacity among new investigators on implementation research of Indian government-funded mental health programmes, which was based on a need expressed by government agencies. The workshop was conducted in Delhi, India, and brought together junior faculty members working in mental health services settings throughout the country, experienced international behavioural health researchers and representatives of the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR), the prime Indian medical research funding agency. Pre- and post-assessments were used to capture changes in participants' perceived abilities to develop proposals, design research studies, evaluate outcomes and develop collaborations with ICMR and other researchers. Process measures were used to track the number of single-or multi-site proposals that were generated and funded. Participants (n = 24) generated 12 single- or multi-site research grant applications that will be funded by ICMR. The grantathon model described herein can be modified to build mental health services research capacity in other contexts. Given that this workshop not only was conceptualised and delivered but also returned results in less than 1 year, this model has the potential to quickly build research capacity and ultimately reduce the mental health treatment gap in resource-limited settings.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 20 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 18%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 8%
Psychology 6 8%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 22 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,083,701
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1,011
of 1,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,022
of 327,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#23
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 327,740 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.