↓ 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 (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 23%
Student > Master 9 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 26%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 5 12%

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
#8,770,403
of 14,537,474 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,361
of 2,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,222
of 227,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#20
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,537,474 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 227,091 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 57% of its contemporaries.