↓ Skip to main content

Automated telephone interventions for problematic alcohol use in clinical and population samples: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Automated telephone interventions for problematic alcohol use in clinical and population samples: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Research Notes, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2955-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claes Andersson, Mikael Gajecki, Agneta Öjehagen, Anne H. Berman

Abstract

The primary objective was to evaluate 6-month outcomes for brief and extensive automated telephony interventions targeting problematic alcohol use, in comparison to an assessment-only control group. The secondary objective was to compare levels of problematic alcohol use (hazardous, harmful or probable dependence), gender and age among study participants from clinical psychiatric and addiction outpatient settings and from population-based telephone helpline users and Internet help-seeker samples. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) was used for screening of problematic alcohol use and 6-month follow-up assessment. A total of 248 of help-seekers with at least hazardous use (AUDIT scores of ≥ 6/≥ 8 for women/men) were recruited from clinical and general population settings. Minor recruitment group differences were identified with respect to AUDIT scores and age at baseline. One hundred and sixty persons (64.5%) did not complete the follow-up assessment. The attrition group had a higher proportion of probable dependence (71% vs. 56%; p = 0.025), and higher scores on the total AUDIT, and its subscales for alcohol consumption and alcohol problems. At follow up, within-group problem levels had declined across all three groups, but there were no significant between-group differences. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01958359, Registered October 9, 2013. Retrospectively registered.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Other 3 7%
Librarian 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 12 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 21%
Psychology 8 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Unspecified 3 7%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 October 2020.
All research outputs
#7,229,289
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,125
of 4,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,574
of 441,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#40
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 441,391 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.