The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Defining a Brief Intervention for the Promotion of Psychological Well-being among Unemployed Individuals through Expert Consensus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychiatry, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00013 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Osvaldo Santos, Elisa Lopes, Ana Virgolino, Miodraga Stefanovska-Petkovska, Alexandra Dinis, Sara Ambrósio, Maria João Heitor |
| Abstract |
Epidemiologic evidence highlights the harmful consequences of unemployment on health and well-being. This emphasizes the need to design low-cost interventions to prevent the adverse mental health effects of unemployment. The main aim of this study was to create expert-consensus regarding development and implementation of a brief, sustainable, and effective intervention program for promoting mental health among unemployed. The Delphi technique entailed a selected panel of 75 experts from various relevant professional backgrounds. Panel members were asked to state their level of agreement (5-point Likert scale) regarding (a) required characteristics for an effective mental health intervention for unemployed people and (b) key variables for assessing the effectiveness of that intervention. Consensus was obtained throughout two rounds of data collection through e-mail contact, with structured questionnaires. Items of the questionnaire were based on literature reviews about community-based interventions for unemployed individuals. Overall, 46 experts collaborated with the Delphi process (final participation rate: 61.3%). Based on a review of the literature, 185 items were identified and grouped into two broad categories (set of characteristics of the intervention and set of variables for effectiveness assessment), aggregating a total of 11 dimensions. The two Delphi rounds resulted in the selection of 35 characteristic items for the intervention program and 54 variables for its effectiveness assessment. Brief group interventions were considered to be effective and sustainable for mental health promotion in unemployment conditions if targeting mental health literacy, training interpersonal skills, and job-search skills. As agreed by the panel of experts, a brief, sustainable and effective intervention can be developed and implemented by accounting for unemployed capacity-building for mental health self-care and adequate job-searching attitudes and skills. These results should be further implemented in community and multisector-based standardized interventions, targeting mental health among unemployed people, ensuring adequate conditions for its effectiveness assessment. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 85 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 31 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 35 | 41% |
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 23 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,488,947
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#5,838
of 10,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,459
of 437,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#94
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,145 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 437,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.