↓ Skip to main content

Cross-country discrepancies on public understanding of stress concepts: evidence for stress-management psychoeducational programs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Cross-country discrepancies on public understanding of stress concepts: evidence for stress-management psychoeducational programs
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-0886-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliana Nery Souza-Talarico, Nathalie Wan, Sheila Santos, Patrícia Paes Araujo Fialho, Eliane Corrêa Chaves, Paulo Caramelli, Estela Ferraz Bianchi, Aline Talita Santos, Sonia J Lupien

Abstract

Negative effects of stress have pose one of the major threats to the health and economic well being of individuals independently of age and cultural background. Nevertheless, the term "stress" has been globally used unlinked from scientificevidence-based meaning. The discrepancies between scientific and public stress knowledge are focus of concern and little is know about it. This is relevant since misconceptions about stress may influence the effects of stress-management psychoeducational programs and the development of best practices for interventions. The study aimed to analyze stress knowledge among the Canadian and Brazilian general public and to determine the extent to which scientific and popular views of stress differ between those countries. We evaluated 1156 healthy participants between 18 and 88 years of age recruited from Canada (n = 502) and Brazil (n = 654). To assess stress knowledge, a questionnaire composed of questions regarding stress concepts ("stress is bad" versus "stress-free life is good") and factors capable of triggering the stress response ("novelty, unpredictability, low sense of control and social evaluative threat versus "time pressure,work overload, conflict, unbalance and children") was used. Both Canadian and Brazilian participants showed misconceptions about stress and the factors capable of triggering a stress response. However, the rate of misconceptions was higher in Brazil than in Canada (p < 0.05). These findings suggest a lack of public understanding of stress science and its variance according to a country's society. Psychoeducational programs and vulnerability of stress-related disorder are discussed.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 79 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 21%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Researcher 4 5%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 24 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 27 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,332,117
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#4,221
of 4,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,913
of 339,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#107
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,700 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 339,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.