The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 |
Cognitive Biases in Cannabis, Opioid, and Stimulant Disorders: A Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychiatry, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00376 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Melvyn W. B. Zhang, Jiangbo Ying, Tracey Wing, Guo Song, Daniel S. S. Fung, Helen E. Smith |
| Abstract |
Background: Opiates, cannabis, and stimulants are highly abused and are prevalent disorders. Psychological interventions are crucial given that they help individuals maintain abstinence following a lapse or relapse into substance use. The dual-process theory has posited that while the repeated use of a substance leads to increased automatic processing and increased automatic tendencies to approach substance-specific cues, in addition to the inhibition of other normal cognitive processes. Prior reviews are limited, as they failed to include trials involving participants with these prevalent addictive disorders or have not reviewed the published literature extensively. Objectives: The primary aim of this review is to synthesize the evidence for cognitive biases in opioid use, cannabis use, and stimulant use disorders. The secondary aim of the review is to determine if cognitive bias could be consistently detected using the different methods. Lastly, this review will narratively synthesize the evidence of possible associations between cognitive biases and other addiction-related outcomes. Methods: A search was conducted from November 2017 to January 2018 on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Science Direct, Cochrane Central, and Scopus. Articles were included if participants had a primary diagnosis of opioid use, cannabis use, or stimulant use disorder. The selection process of the articles was in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. A qualitative synthesis was undertaken. Results: A total of 38 studies were identified. The main finding is the evidence that cognitive biases are present in the 38 studies identified, except for a single study on opioid use and stimulant use disorders. Cognitive biases were reported despite a variety of different methods being utilized. Synthesis of secondary outcome was not feasible, due to the varied outcomes reported. Conclusions: Cognitive biases have been consistently observed in opioid use, cannabis use, and stimulant use disorders, despite a range of assessment tools being utilized in the assessment for these biases. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 21 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 22 | 31% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 20 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 03 October 2018.
All research outputs
#3,728,456
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#1,906
of 10,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,289
of 330,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#53
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,221 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
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 330,630 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 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 68% of its contemporaries.