↓ Skip to main content

Use of an electronic metabolic monitoring form in a mental health service – a retrospective file audit

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, 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 (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Use of an electronic metabolic monitoring form in a mental health service – a retrospective file audit
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-0814-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brenda Happell, Chris Platania-Phung, Cadeyrn J. Gaskin, Robert Stanton

Abstract

People with severe mental illness have poorer physical health, experience disparities in physical health care, and lead significantly shorter lives, compared to the general population. Routine metabolic monitoring is proposed as a method of identifying risk factors for metabolic abnormalities. Efforts to date suggest routine metabolic monitoring is both incomplete and ad-hoc, however. This present study reports on the recent implementation of a routine metabolic monitoring form at a mental health service in regional Australia. A retrospective file audit was undertaken on 721 consumers with electronic health records at the mental health service. Descriptive statistics were used to report the frequency of use of the metabolic monitoring form and the range of metabolic parameters that had been recorded. Consumers had an average age of 41.4 years (SD = 14.6), over half were male (58.4 %), and the most common psychiatric diagnosis was schizophrenia (42.3 %). The metabolic monitoring forms of 36 % of consumers contained data. Measurements were most commonly recorded for weight (87.4 % of forms), height (85.4 %), blood pressure (83.5 %), and body mass index (73.6 %). Data were less frequently recorded for lipids (cholesterol, 56.3 %; low density lipoprotein, 48.7 %; high density lipoprotein, 51.7 %; triglycerides, 55.2 %), liver function (alanine aminotransferase, 66.3 %; aspartate aminotransferase, 65.5 %; gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, 64.8 %), renal function (urea, 66.3 %; creatinine, 65.9 %), fasting blood glucose (60.2 %), and waist circumference (54.4 %). The metabolic monitoring forms in consumer electronic health records are not utilised in a manner that maximises their potential. The extent of the missing data suggests that the metabolic health of most consumers may not have been adequately monitored. Addressing the possible reasons for the low completion rate has the potential to improve the provision of physical health care for people with mental illness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 70 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 20%
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Researcher 6 8%
Lecturer 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 20 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Psychology 9 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 27 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 10 August 2016.
All research outputs
#4,567,538
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,718
of 4,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,010
of 299,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#33
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,698 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 63% 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 299,207 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 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 69% of its contemporaries.