↓ Skip to main content

Mapping research activity on mental health disorders in Europe: study protocol for the Mapping_NCD project

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Mapping research activity on mental health disorders in Europe: study protocol for the Mapping_NCD project
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0111-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Berg Brigham, Meryl Darlington, John S. F. Wright, Grant Lewison, Panos Kanavos, Isabelle Durand-Zaleski

Abstract

Mental health disorders (MHDs) constitute a large and growing disease burden in Europe, although they typically receive less attention and research funding than other non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This study protocol describes a methodology for the mapping of MHD research in Europe as part of Mapping_NCD, a 2-year project funded by the European Commission which seeks to map European research funding and impact for five NCDs in order to identify potential gaps, overlaps, synergies and opportunities, and to develop evidence-based policies for future research. The project aims to develop a multi-focal view of the MHD research landscape across the 28 European Union Member States, plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, through a survey of European funding entities, analysis of research initiatives undertaken in the public, voluntary/not-for-profit and commercial sectors, and expert interviews to contextualize the gathered data. The impact of MHD research will be explored using bibliometric analyses of scientific publications, clinical guidelines and newspaper stories reporting on research initiatives. Finally, these research inputs and outputs will be considered in light of various metrics that have been proposed to inform priorities for the allocation of research funds, including burden of disease, treatment gaps and cost of illness. Given the growing burden of MHDs, a clear and broad view of the current state of MHD research is needed to ensure that limited resources are directed to evidence-based priority areas. MHDs pose a particular challenge in mapping the research landscape due to their complex nature, high co-morbidity and varying diagnostic criteria. Undertaking such an effort across 31 countries is further challenged by differences in data collection, healthcare systems, reimbursement rates and clinical practices, as well as cultural and socioeconomic diversity. Using multiple methods to explore the spectrum of MHD research funding activity across Europe, this project aims to develop a broad, high-level perspective to inform priority setting for future research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 14 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 9 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 18%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 9%
Psychology 3 7%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 17 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 June 2016.
All research outputs
#950,123
of 7,953,275 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#133
of 454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,383
of 270,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#8
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,953,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 270,463 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 63% of its contemporaries.