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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of group psychoeducation versus group support in the maintenance of bipolar disorder
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, July 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-244x-11-114 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard K Morriss, Fiona Lobban, Steven Jones, Lisa Riste, Sarah Peters, Christopher Roberts, Linda Davies, Debbie Mayes |
| Abstract |
Non-didactically delivered curriculum based group psychoeducation has been shown to be more effective than both group support in a specialist mood disorder centre in Spain (with effects lasting up to five years), and treatment as usual in Australia. It is unclear whether the specific content and form of group psychoeducation is effective or the chance to meet and work collaboratively with other peers. The main objective of this trial is to determine whether curriculum based group psychoeducation is more clinically and cost effective than unstructured peer group support. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 155 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 31 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 28 | 18% |
| Unknown | 35 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 62 | 39% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 11 | 7% |
| Unknown | 42 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 July 2012.
All research outputs
#15,246,403
of 22,669,724 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#3,324
of 4,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,855
of 119,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#32
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,669,724 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,634 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 119,296 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.