↓ Skip to main content

The biological, social and clinical bases of drug addiction: commentary and debate

Overview of attention for article published in Psychopharmacology, June 1996
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
198 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
Title
The biological, social and clinical bases of drug addiction: commentary and debate
Published in
Psychopharmacology, June 1996
DOI 10.1007/bf02246016
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Altman, B. J. Everitt, T. W. Robbins, S. Glautier, A. Markou, D. Nutt, R. Oretti, G. D. Phillips

Abstract

This article summarizes the main discussions at a meeting on the biological, social and clinical bases of drug addiction focused on contemporary topics in drug dependence. Four main domains are surveyed, reflecting the structure of the meeting: psychological and pharmacological factors; neurobiological substrates; risk factors (including a consideration of vulnerability from an environmental and genetic perspective); and clinical treatment. Among the topics discussed were tolerance, sensitization, withdrawal, craving and relapse; mechanisms of reinforcing actions of drugs at the behavioural, cognitive and neural levels; the role of subjective factors in drug dependence; approaches to the behavioural and molecular genetics of drug dependence; the use of functional neuroimaging; pharmaceutical and psychosocial strategies for treatment; epidemiological and sociological aspects of drug dependence. The survey takes into account the considerable disagreements and controversies arising from the discussions, but also reaches a degree of consensus in certain areas.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Unknown 119 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 19%
Researcher 22 17%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 30 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 47 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 10%
Neuroscience 11 9%
Unspecified 9 7%
Other 17 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 01 January 2015.
All research outputs
#1,043,563
of 12,218,786 outputs
Outputs from Psychopharmacology
#288
of 4,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,538
of 138,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychopharmacology
#7
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,218,786 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,093 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 138,785 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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.