↓ Skip to main content

SAGE Publishing

Article Metrics

Transforming Improving Access to Psychological Therapies

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Health Psychology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Transforming Improving Access to Psychological Therapies
Published in
Journal of Health Psychology, June 2018
DOI 10.1177/1359105318781873
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael J Scott

Abstract

The three commentaries on my paper 'IAPT - The Need for Radical Reform' are agreed that Improving Access to Psychological Therapies cannot be regarded as the 'gold standard' for the delivery of psychological therapy services. Furthermore, they agreed that Improving Access to Psychological Therapies should not continue to mark its 'own homework' and should be subjected to rigorous independent evaluation scrutiny. It is a matter for a public enquiry to ascertain why £1 billion has been spent on Improving Access to Psychological Therapies without any such an independent evaluation. What is interesting is that nocommentary has been forthcoming from the UK Improving Access to Psychological Therapies service nor have they shared a platform to discuss these issues. It is regrettable that the UK Government's National Audit Office has chosen, to date, not to publish its own investigation into the integrity of Improving Access to Psychological Therapies data. Openness would be an excellent starting point for the necessary transformation of Improving Access to Psychological Therapies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 5%
Unknown 63 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 17%
Student > Postgraduate 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Researcher 7 11%
Other 7 11%
Other 20 30%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 45%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 15%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 9 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 28 November 2018.
All research outputs
#2,085,037
of 16,126,328 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Health Psychology
#298
of 1,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,704
of 281,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Health Psychology
#4
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,126,328 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,893 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 281,374 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.