↓ Skip to main content

Addressing culture and context in humanitarian response: preparing desk reviews to inform mental health and psychosocial support

Overview of attention for article published in Conflict and Health, November 2017
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
Addressing culture and context in humanitarian response: preparing desk reviews to inform mental health and psychosocial support
Published in
Conflict and Health, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13031-017-0123-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Claire Greene, Mark J. D. Jordans, Brandon A. Kohrt, Peter Ventevogel, Laurence J. Kirmayer, Ghayda Hassan, Anna Chiumento, Mark van Ommeren, Wietse A. Tol

Abstract

Delivery of effective mental health and psychosocial support programs requires knowledge of existing health systems and socio-cultural context. To respond rapidly to humanitarian emergencies, international organizations often seek to design programs according to international guidelines and mobilize external human resources to manage and deliver programs. Familiarizing international humanitarian practitioners with local culture and contextualizing programs is essential to minimize risk of harm, maximize benefit, and optimize efficient use of resources. Timely literature reviews on traditional health practices, cultural beliefs and attitudes toward mental health and illness, local health care systems and previous experiences with humanitarian interventions can provide international practitioners with crucial background information to improve their capacity to work efficiently and with maximum benefit. In this paper, we draw on experience implementing desk review guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNHCR, the United Nations Refugee Agency (2012) in four diverse humanitarian crises (earthquakes in Haiti and Nepal; forced displacement among Syrians and Congolese). We discuss critical parameters for the design and implementation of desk reviews, and discuss current challenges and future directions to improve mental health care and psychosocial support in humanitarian emergencies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 tweeters 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 142 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 23%
Researcher 19 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Other 9 6%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 35 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 18%
Social Sciences 20 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 40 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,012,835
of 20,131,764 outputs
Outputs from Conflict and Health
#61
of 510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,505
of 333,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conflict and Health
#7
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,131,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 510 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 333,407 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.