↓ Skip to main content

Promotion, prevention and protection: interventions at the population- and community-levels for mental, neurological and substance use disorders in low- and middle-income countries

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Mental Health Systems, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
522 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
Promotion, prevention and protection: interventions at the population- and community-levels for mental, neurological and substance use disorders in low- and middle-income countries
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Systems, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13033-016-0060-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Inge Petersen, Sara Evans-Lacko, Maya Semrau, Margaret M. Barry, Dan Chisholm, Petra Gronholm, Catherine O. Egbe, Graham Thornicroft

Abstract

In addition to services within the health system, interventions at the population and community levels are also important for the promotion of mental health, primary prevention of mental, neurological and substance use (MNS) disorders, identification and case detection of MNS disorders; and to a lesser degree treatment, care and rehabilitation. This study aims to identify "best practice" and "good practice" interventions that can feasibly be delivered at these population- and community-levels in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to aid the identification of resource efficiencies and allocation in LMICs. A narrative review was conducted given the wide range of relevant interventions. Expert consensus was used to identify "best practice" at the population-level on the basis of existing quasi-experimental natural experiments and cost effectiveness, with small scale emerging and promising evidence comprising "good practice". At the community-level, using expert consensus, the ACE (Assessing Cost-Effectiveness in Prevention Project) grading system was used to differentiate "best practice" interventions with sufficient evidence from "good practice" interventions with limited but promising evidence. At the population-level, laws and regulations to control alcohol demand and restrict access to lethal means of suicide were considered "best practice". Child protection laws, improved control of neurocysticercosis and mass awareness campaigns were identified as "good practice". At the community level, socio-emotional learning programmes in schools and parenting programmes during infancy were identified as "best practice". The following were all identified as "good practice": Integrating mental health promotion strategies into workplace occupational health and safety policies; mental health information and awareness programmes as well as detection of MNS disorders in schools; early child enrichment/preschool educational programs and parenting programs for children aged 2-14 years; gender equity and/or economic empowerment programs for vulnerable groups; training of gatekeepers to identify people with MNS disorders in the community; and training non-specialist community members at a neighbourhood level to assist with community-based support and rehabilitation of people with mental disorders. Interventions provided at the population- and community-levels have an important role to play in promoting mental health, preventing the onset, and protecting those with MNS disorders. The importance of inter-sectoral engagement and the need for further research on interventions at these levels in LMICs is highlighted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 522 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 519 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 92 18%
Researcher 62 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 10%
Student > Bachelor 36 7%
Student > Postgraduate 29 6%
Other 105 20%
Unknown 145 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 91 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 73 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 70 13%
Social Sciences 58 11%
Neuroscience 13 2%
Other 51 10%
Unknown 166 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 October 2021.
All research outputs
#4,506,472
of 24,673,288 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#287
of 746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,945
of 306,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#9
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,673,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 306,519 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.