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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effectiveness of eLearning and blended modes of delivery of Mental Health First Aid training in the workplace: randomised controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12888-018-1888-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicola J. Reavley, Amy J. Morgan, Julie-Anne Fischer, Betty Kitchener, Nataly Bovopoulos, Anthony F. Jorm |
| Abstract |
The aim of the WorkplaceAid study was to compare the effects of eLearning or blended (eLearning plus face-to-face course delivery) Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) courses on public servants' knowledge, stigmatising attitudes, confidence in providing support and intentions to provide support to a person with depression or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A randomized controlled trial was carried out with 608 Australian public servants. Participants were randomly assigned to complete an eLearning MHFA course, a blended MHFA course or Red Cross eLearning Provide First Aid (PFA) (the control). The effects of the interventions were evaluated using online questionnaires pre- and post-training. The questionnaires centred around vignettes describing a person meeting the criteria for depression or PTSD. Primary outcomes were mental health first aid knowledge and desire for social distance. Secondary outcomes were recognition of mental health problems, beliefs about treatment, helping intentions and confidence and personal stigma. Feedback on the usefulness of the courses was also collected. Both the eLearning MHFA and blended MHFA courses had positive effects compared to PFA eLearning on mental health first aid knowledge, desire for social distance, beliefs about professional treatments, intentions and confidence in helping a person and personal stigma towards a person with depression or PTSD. There were very small non-significant differences between the eLearning MHFA and blended MHFA courses on these outcome measures. However, users were more likely to highly rate the blended MHFA course in terms of usefulness, amount learned and intentions to recommend the course to others. The blended MHFA course was only minimally more effective than eLearning MHFA in improving knowledge and attitudes. However, course satisfaction ratings were higher from participants in the blended MHFA course, potentially leading to greater benefits in the future. Longer-term follow-up is needed to explore this. ACTRN12614000623695 registered on 13/06/2015 (prospectively registered). |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 245 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 30 | 12% |
| Researcher | 26 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 37 | 15% |
| Unknown | 98 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 41 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 9% |
| Unknown | 105 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 September 2018.
All research outputs
#5,718,659
of 23,105,443 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,921
of 4,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,826
of 341,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#67
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,105,443 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 341,556 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.