↓ Skip to main content

SAGE Publishing

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
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 4%
Unknown 72 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 7 9%
Other 21 28%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 13 17%
Attention Score in Context

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
#3,595,040
of 25,393,455 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Health Psychology
#397
of 2,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,082
of 335,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Health Psychology
#10
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,393,455 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. 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 335,430 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.