↓ Skip to main content

Selection of depression measures for use among Vietnamese populations in primary care settings: a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Mental Health Systems, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Selection of depression measures for use among Vietnamese populations in primary care settings: a scoping review
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Systems, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13033-015-0024-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jill Murphy, Elliot M. Goldner, Charles H. Goldsmith, Pham Thi Oanh, William Zhu, Kitty K. Corbett, Vu Cong Nguyen

Abstract

Depression is an important and growing contributor to the burden of disease around the world and evidence suggests the experience of depression varies cross-culturally. Efforts to improve the integration of services for depression in primary care are increasing globally, meaning that culturally valid measures that are acceptable for use in primary care settings are needed. We conducted a scoping review of 27 studies that validated or used 10 measures of depression in Vietnamese populations. We reviewed the validity of the instruments as reported in the studies and qualitatively assessed cultural validity and acceptability for use in primary care. We found much variation in the methods used to validate the measures, with an emphasis on criterion validity and reliability. Enhanced evaluation of content and construct validity is needed to ensure validity within diverse cultural contexts such as Vietnam. For effective use in primary care, measures must be further evaluated for their brevity and ease of use. To identify appropriate measures for use in primary care in diverse populations, assessment must balance standard validity testing with enhanced testing for appropriateness in terms of culture, language, and gender and for acceptability for use in primary care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 15%
Student > Master 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 6 22%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 5 19%

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 20 September 2016.
All research outputs
#8,769,157
of 14,535,828 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#373
of 513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,052
of 239,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,535,828 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 513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 239,585 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.