↓ Skip to main content

Does “Individual Placement and Support” Satisfy the Users’ Needs?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
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.
Title
Does “Individual Placement and Support” Satisfy the Users’ Needs?
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00160
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandra Viering, Matthias Jäger, Carlos Nordt, Franziska Bühler, Bettina Bärtsch, Hansjörg Leimer, Peter Sommerfeld, Wulf Rössler, Wolfram Kawohl

Abstract

This study aims to investigate clients' satisfaction with individual placement and support (IPS) at the University Hospital for Psychiatry Zurich (PUK). Furthermore, this study aims to investigate if clients feel the approach of IPS as a useful approach to fulfill their needs. One hundred twenty-five people were recruited from one of the three IPS services of PUK and were asked to complete a structured questionnaire. The following IPS services were available: (i) randomized controlled trial (RCT) ZHEPP (www.zhepp.ch), (ii) RCT ZInEP (www.zinep.ch), and (iii) us clinical supported employment service of PUK (IPS-PUK). The clients mostly indicated that IPS was generally useful and fitted their needs. Overall satisfaction of the participants with the IPS services of the PUK was very high. Furthermore, client satisfaction and symptom severity are inversely associated. In conclusion, participants of the IPS services received the support they were looking for. This means that the approach of IPS fits the needs of different patient groups and can be used without any modifications. The most important limitation is the unequal group sizes. Therefore, the obtained results need to be strengthened by future research.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 4%
Unknown 23 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Librarian 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 6 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Psychology 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 May 2015.
All research outputs
#18,411,569
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#5,665
of 9,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,132
of 239,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#30
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 239,980 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.