↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of the priority target group of mental health service networks within a nation-wide reform of adult psychiatry in Belgium

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Assessment of the priority target group of mental health service networks within a nation-wide reform of adult psychiatry in Belgium
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1434-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vincent Lorant, Adeline Grard, Chantal Van Audenhove, Eva Helmer, Joke Vanderhaegen, Pablo Nicaise

Abstract

Belgium is currently implementing a nation-wide reform of mental health care delivery based on service networks. These networks are supposed to strengthen the community-based supply of care, reduce the resort to hospitals, and improve the continuity of care. They are also intended to supply comprehensive care to all adult mental health users. It is unclear, however, if one single model of network can target the needs of the whole adult population with mental health problems. In 2011, ten networks were commissioned and assessed. Networks included a total of 635 services of different types. Services were asked to select 10 users by systematic sampling and to state whether these users were considered as a priority for care in the network. Sociodemographic, social integration level, diagnoses, and psycho-social functioning variables were also collected. Two thousand four hundred ninety users were included, and 1564 were given priority for network care. Priority was higher for men than for women (69.9 % versus 56.2 %), and for non-nationals than for Belgians (72.6 % versus 61.9 %). Users were designated priority when they had poor psycho-social functioning (HoNOS > 17, OR = 3.15, p < 0.001), personality disorder or schizophrenia (OR = 1.54, p < 0.001), and a medium level of social integration (SIX = [2,3], OR = 1.57, p < 0.001). Less socially integrated patients (SIX < 1, OR = 0.53, p < 0.001) and users of community and social services were less likely to be selected. Although the reform was intended for the whole population of adults with mental health problems, the users selected have a profile of severe mentally-ill users with social deprivation and poor social functioning. Policy may have been over-ambitious trying to address the whole population with one single type of service network. The actual selection process of users makes it less likely that the reform will achieve all its objectives.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 23%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 16 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 18 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,473,400
of 25,161,628 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#7,287
of 8,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,771
of 334,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#73
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,161,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,540 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 334,645 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.