↓ Skip to main content

A Systematic Review of Evidence for the Clubhouse Model of Psychosocial Rehabilitation

Overview of attention for article published in Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research, August 2016
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 (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
A Systematic Review of Evidence for the Clubhouse Model of Psychosocial Rehabilitation
Published in
Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10488-016-0760-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colleen McKay, Katie L. Nugent, Matthew Johnsen, William W. Eaton, Charles W. Lidz

Abstract

The Clubhouse Model has been in existence for over sixty-five years; however, a review that synthesizes the literature on the model is needed. The current study makes use of the existing research to conduct a systematic review of articles providing a comprehensive understanding of what is known about the Clubhouse Model, to identify the best evidence available, as well as areas that would benefit from further study. Findings are summarized and evidence is classified by outcome domains. Fifty-two articles met the selection criteria of Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT's), quasi-experimental studies, or observational studies for domains of employment (N = 29); quality of life/satisfaction (N = 10); reductions in psychiatric hospitalization(s) (N = 10); social relationships (N = 10); education (N = 3); and health promotion activities (N = 2). RCT results support the efficacy of the Clubhouse Model in promoting employment, reducing hospitalization(s), and improving quality of life. Quasi-experimental and observational studies offer support in education and social domains. The findings from this review indicate that Clubhouses are a promising practice but additional studies using rigorous methods that report the strength of the outcomes are needed to evaluate Clubhouse programs with fidelity to the Clubhouse Model.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 8 17%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 30%
Unspecified 9 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Social Sciences 6 13%
Other 2 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,127,735
of 13,243,534 outputs
Outputs from Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research
#69
of 411 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,185
of 263,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,243,534 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 411 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 263,067 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.