↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Use of technology for care coordination initiatives for patients with mental health issues: a systematic literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Use of technology for care coordination initiatives for patients with mental health issues: a systematic literature review
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, September 2018
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s172810
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erin Falconer, David Kho, John P Docherty

Abstract

This systematic literature review investigates the use of technology for the coordination and management of mental health care with an emphasis on outcomes. Searches of MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE were conducted between January 1, 2003, and January 4, 2018, to identify articles that assessed patient outcomes associated with care coordination, evaluated technology to improve care, or discussed management of mental health care using technology. A total of 21 articles were included in a qualitative review based on the recommendations set forth by the PRISMA statement. Among the various health technologies, electronic health records were most commonly used for care coordination, with primary care being the most frequent setting. Care coordination was shown to provide easier patient access to health care providers and to improve communication between caregiver and patient, especially in cases where geographic location or distance is a challenge. Barriers to coordinated care included, but were not limited to, insufficient funding for health information technology, deficient reimbursement plans, limited access to technologies, cultural barriers, and underperforming electronic health record templates. In conclusion, many studies showed the benefit of coordinated and collaborative care through the use of technology; however, further research and development efforts are needed to continue technological innovation for advanced patient care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 9 24%
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 21%
Unspecified 6 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 8 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 October 2018.
All research outputs
#7,843,530
of 13,603,158 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,148
of 2,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,889
of 220,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#16
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,603,158 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 220,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 59% of its contemporaries.