↓ Skip to main content

A decision aid to assist decisions on disclosure of mental health status to an employer: protocol for the CORAL exploratory randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 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
A decision aid to assist decisions on disclosure of mental health status to an employer: protocol for the CORAL exploratory randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-244x-12-133
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire Henderson, Elaine Brohan, Sarah Clement, Paul Williams, Francesca Lassman, Oliver Schauman, Joanna Murray, Caroline Murphy, Mike Slade, Graham Thornicroft

Abstract

The UK Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for employers to ask health questions before making an offer of employment except in certain circumstances. While the majority of employers would prefer applicants to disclose a mental illness at the application stage, many people either wait until they have accepted the job and then disclose to an occupational health professional, or do not do so at all due to the anticipation of discrimination or a wish for privacy. However, non disclosure precludes the ability to request reasonable adjustments in the workplace or to make a claim of direct discrimination. Disclosure to employers is therefore a difficult decision. A recent pilot study by our group of the CORAL decision aid showed that it helped mental health service users clarify their needs and values regarding disclosure and led to reduction in decisional conflict. The present proof of concept trial aims to determine whether a full scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) is justifiable and feasible, and to optimise its design.

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 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 189 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 13%
Researcher 24 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 9%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Other 23 12%
Unknown 52 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 11%
Social Sciences 17 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 2%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 62 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 January 2022.
All research outputs
#7,464,097
of 24,074,720 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,580
of 5,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,333
of 172,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#40
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,074,720 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,042 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 172,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 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 50% of its contemporaries.