↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Improving access to specialized care for first-episode psychosis: an ecological model

Overview of attention for article published in Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Improving access to specialized care for first-episode psychosis: an ecological model
Published in
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, August 2018
DOI 10.2147/rmhp.s131833
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aubrey M Moe, Ellen B Rubinstein, Colin J Gallagher, David M Weiss, Amanda Stewart, Nicholas JK Breitborde

Abstract

Psychotic spectrum disorders are serious illnesses with symptoms that significantly impact functioning and quality of life. An accumulating body of literature has demonstrated that specialized treatments that are offered early after symptom onset are disproportionately more effective in managing symptoms and improving outcomes than when these same treatments are provided later in the course of illness. Specialized, multicomponent treatment packages are of particular importance, which are comprised of services offered as soon as possible after the onset of psychosis with the goal of addressing multiple care needs within a single care setting. As specialized programs continue to develop worldwide, it is crucial to consider how to increase access to such specialized services. In the current review, we utilize an ecological model of understanding barriers to care, with emphasis on understanding how individuals with first-episode psychosis interact with and are influenced by a variety of systemic factors that impact help-seeking behaviors and engagement with treatment. Future work in this area will be important in understanding how to most effectively design and implement specialized care for individuals early in the course of a psychotic disorder.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Other 6 26%
Unknown 5 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 22%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 7 30%

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 15 September 2018.
All research outputs
#11,981,381
of 13,516,274 outputs
Outputs from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#127
of 139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,264
of 263,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,516,274 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 139 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.9. 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 263,838 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 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.