↓ Skip to main content

Identifying levels of general distress in first line mental health services: can GP- and eHealth clients’ scores be meaningfully compared?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Identifying levels of general distress in first line mental health services: can GP- and eHealth clients’ scores be meaningfully compared?
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12888-017-1552-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan van Bebber, Johanna T. W. Wigman, Lex Wunderink, Jorge N. Tendeiro, Marieke Wichers, Janneke Broeksteeg, Bart Schrieken, Sjoerd Sytema, Berend Terluin, Rob R. Meijer

Abstract

The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) (Huisarts Wetenschap 39: 538-47, 1996) is a self-report questionnaire developed in the Netherlands to distinguish non-specific general distress from depression, anxiety, and somatization. This questionnaire is often used in different populations and settings and there is a paper-and-pencil and computerized version. We used item response theory to investigate whether the 4DSQ measures the same construct (structural equivalence) in the same way (scalar equivalence) in two samples comprised of primary mental health care attendees: (i) clients who visited their General Practitioner responded to the 4DSQ paper-and-pencil version, and (ii) eHealth clients responded to the 4DSQ computerized version. Specifically, we investigated whether the distress items functioned differently in eHealth clients compared to General Practitioners' clients and whether these differences lead to substantial differences at scale level. Results showed that in general structural equivalence holds for the distress scale. This means that the distress scale measures the same construct in both General Practitioners' clients and eHealth clients. Furthermore, although eHealth clients have higher observed distress scores than General Practitioners' clients, application of a multiple group generalized partial credit response model suggests that scalar equivalence holds. The same cutoff scores can be used for classifying respondents as having low, moderate and high levels of distress in both settings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 12 32%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 19%
Psychology 5 14%
Computer Science 4 11%
Engineering 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 9 24%
Unknown 7 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,211,212
of 14,075,132 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,740
of 3,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,429
of 400,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#182
of 415 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,075,132 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,279 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 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 400,654 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 415 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 55% of its contemporaries.