↓ Skip to main content

Barriers to mental health care utilization among internally displaced persons in the republic of Georgia: a rapid appraisal study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
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 (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 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
Barriers to mental health care utilization among internally displaced persons in the republic of Georgia: a rapid appraisal study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3113-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrianna Murphy, Ivdity Chikovani, Maia Uchaneishvili, Nino Makhashvili, Bayard Roberts

Abstract

There is a paucity of evidence on access to services for mental health and psychosocial support for conflict-affected populations in low- and middle-income countries. In the Republic of Georgia, rates of utilization of mental health services among internally displaced people with mental disorders are low. We set out to identify the health system barriers leading to this treatment gap. We used rapid appraisal methods (collection and triangulation of multiple data sources) to investigate barriers to accessing mental health care services among adult IDPs in Georgia. Data collection included review of existing policy documents and other published data, as well as semi-structured interviews with 29 key informants including policy makers, NGO staff, health professionals and patients. The following factors emerged as important barriers affecting access to mental health care services among IDPs in Georgia: inadequate insurance coverage of mental disorders and poor identification and referral systems, underfunding, shortage of human resources, poor information systems, patient out-of-pocket payments and stigmatization. While rapid appraisal methods cannot control for potential biases or achieve representativeness, triangulation supports internal validity and reliability of the data collected, allowing data to be used to inform health care interventions. The appropriateness and potential effectiveness of policy interventions such as insurance coverage of a wider range of mental disorders, integration of services for these at the primary health care level, and community-based approaches in this context should be explored.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 179 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 16%
Researcher 20 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Other 33 18%
Unknown 51 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 12%
Social Sciences 21 12%
Psychology 16 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 60 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 15 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,949,329
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,323
of 7,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,425
of 325,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#47
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,719 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 325,398 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 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.