| Title |
Embedding effective depression care: using theory for primary care organisational and systems change
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, August 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-5-62 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jane M Gunn, Victoria J Palmer, Christopher F Dowrick, Helen E Herrman, Frances E Griffiths, Renata Kokanovic, Grant A Blashki, Kelsey L Hegarty, Caroline L Johnson, Maria Potiriadis, Carl R May |
| Abstract |
Depression and related disorders represent a significant part of general practitioners (GPs) daily work. Implementing the evidence about what works for depression care into routine practice presents a challenge for researchers and service designers. The emerging consensus is that the transfer of efficacious interventions into routine practice is strongly linked to how well the interventions are based upon theory and take into account the contextual factors of the setting into which they are to be transferred. We set out to develop a conceptual framework to guide change and the implementation of best practice depression care in the primary care setting. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 129 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 20% |
| Researcher | 23 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 14% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 30 | 22% |
| Unknown | 20 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 29% |
| Psychology | 26 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 23 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Unknown | 24 | 18% |
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 14 August 2014.
All research outputs
#19,101,128
of 24,353,295 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,660
of 1,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,546
of 98,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,353,295 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,758 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 98,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.