Example of Evidence-Based Mental Health format
Recent searches

Example of Evidence-Based Mental Health format Example of Evidence-Based Mental Health format Example of Evidence-Based Mental Health format Example of Evidence-Based Mental Health format Example of Evidence-Based Mental Health format Example of Evidence-Based Mental Health format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
Look Inside
Example of Evidence-Based Mental Health format Example of Evidence-Based Mental Health format Example of Evidence-Based Mental Health format Example of Evidence-Based Mental Health format Example of Evidence-Based Mental Health format Example of Evidence-Based Mental Health format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
open access Open Access ISSN: 13620347 e-ISSN: 1468960X
recommended Recommended

Evidence-Based Mental Health — Template for authors

Categories Rank Trend in last 3 yrs
Psychiatry and Mental Health #30 of 502 up up by 205 ranks
journal-quality-icon Journal quality:
High
calendar-icon Last 4 years overview: 111 Published Papers | 957 Citations
indexed-in-icon Indexed in: Scopus
last-updated-icon Last updated: 02/07/2020
Insights & related journals
General info
Top papers
Popular templates
Get started guide
Why choose from SciSpace
FAQ

Journal Performance & Insights

  • CiteRatio
  • SJR
  • SNIP

CiteRatio is a measure of average citations received per peer-reviewed paper published in the journal.

8.6

69% from 2019

CiteRatio for Evidence-Based Mental Health from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 8.6
2019 5.1
2018 3.0
2017 2.3
2016 1.2
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • CiteRatio of this journal has increased by 69% in last years.
  • This journal’s CiteRatio is in the top 10 percentile category.

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) measures weighted citations received by the journal. Citation weighting depends on the categories and prestige of the citing journal.

2.282

79% from 2019

SJR for Evidence-Based Mental Health from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 2.282
2019 1.273
2018 0.739
2017 0.839
2016 0.417
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • SJR of this journal has increased by 79% in last years.
  • This journal’s SJR is in the top 10 percentile category.

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) measures actual citations received relative to citations expected for the journal's category.

2.856

155% from 2019

SNIP for Evidence-Based Mental Health from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 2.856
2019 1.121
2018 0.633
2017 0.537
2016 0.482
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • SNIP of this journal has increased by 155% in last years.
  • This journal’s SNIP is in the top 10 percentile category.

Related Journals

open access Open Access ISSN: 10634266

SAGE

CiteRatio: 3.7 | SJR: 0.858 | SNIP: 1.482
open access Open Access ISSN: 1430343 e-ISSN: 14617374

SAGE

CiteRatio: 3.0 | SJR: 0.704 | SNIP: 0.929
open access Open Access ISSN: 2698811 e-ISSN: 14617285

SAGE

CiteRatio: 6.1 | SJR: 1.333 | SNIP: 1.061
open access Open Access ISSN: 17446295 e-ISSN: 17446309

SAGE

CiteRatio: 2.8 | SJR: 0.763 | SNIP: 1.156
Evidence-Based Mental Health

Guideline source: View

All company, product and service names used in this website are for identification purposes only. All product names, trademarks and registered trademarks are property of their respective owners.

Use of these names, trademarks and brands does not imply endorsement or affiliation. Disclaimer Notice

BMJ Publishing Group

Evidence-Based Mental Health

Evidence-Based Mental Health aims to engage psychiatrists and psychologists, particularly younger professionals, in the challenge of basing their practice on evidence. It aims to provide material to allow professionals to develop the necessary skills, such that after reading t...... Read More

Psychiatry and Mental health

Medicine

i
Last updated on
02 Jul 2020
i
ISSN
1362-0347
i
Impact Factor
Low - 0.108
i
Open Access
Yes
i
Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy
Green faq
i
Plagiarism Check
Available via Turnitin
i
Endnote Style
Download Available
i
Bibliography Name
unsrt
i
Citation Type
Numbered
[25]
i
Bibliography Example
C. W. J. Beenakker. Specular andreev reflection in graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett., 97(6):067007, 2006.

Top papers written in this journal

open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1136/EBMENTAL-2019-300117
How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial
Sara Balduzzi1, Gerta Rücker1, Guido Schwarzer1

Abstract:

Objective Meta-analysis is of fundamental importance to obtain an unbiased assessment of the available evidence. In general, the use of meta-analysis has been increasing over the last three decades with mental health as a major research topic. It is then essential to well understand its methodology and interpret its results. ... Objective Meta-analysis is of fundamental importance to obtain an unbiased assessment of the available evidence. In general, the use of meta-analysis has been increasing over the last three decades with mental health as a major research topic. It is then essential to well understand its methodology and interpret its results. In this publication, we describe how to perform a meta-analysis with the freely available statistical software environment R, using a working example taken from the field of mental health. Methods R package meta is used to conduct standard meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses for missing binary outcome data and potential selection bias are conducted with R package metasens. All essential R commands are provided and clearly described to conduct and report analyses. Results The working example considers a binary outcome: we show how to conduct a fixed effect and random effects meta-analysis and subgroup analysis, produce a forest and funnel plot and to test and adjust for funnel plot asymmetry. All these steps work similar for other outcome types. Conclusions R represents a powerful and flexible tool to conduct meta-analyses. This publication gives a brief glimpse into the topic and provides directions to more advanced meta-analysis methods available in R. read more read less

Topics:

Funnel plot (60%)60% related to the paper
View PDF
642 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1136/EBMH.1.3.70
The contribution of reliable and clinically significant change methods to evidence-based mental health
Christopher H. Evans1, Frank Margison2, Michael Barkham3

Abstract:

Where outcomes are unequivocal (life or death; being able to walk v being paralysed) clinicians, researchers, and patients find it easy to speak the same language in evaluating results. However, in much of mental health work initial states and outcomes of treatments are measured on continuous scales and the distribution of th... Where outcomes are unequivocal (life or death; being able to walk v being paralysed) clinicians, researchers, and patients find it easy to speak the same language in evaluating results. However, in much of mental health work initial states and outcomes of treatments are measured on continuous scales and the distribution of the “normal” often overlaps with the range of the “abnormal.” In this situation, clinicians and researchers often talk different languages about change data, and both are probably poor at conveying their thoughts to patients. Researchers traditionally compare means between groups. Their statistical methods, using distributions of the scores before and after treatment to suggest whether change is a sampling artefact or a chance finding, have been known for many years.1 By contrast, clinicians are more often concerned with changes in particular individuals they are treating and often dichotomise outcome as “success” or “failure.” The number needed to treat (NNT) method of presenting results has gone some way to bridge this gap but often uses arbitrary criteria on which to dichotomise change into “success” and “failure.” A typical example is the criterion of a 50% drop on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score. A method bridging these approaches would assist the translation of research results into clinical practice. Jacobson et al proposed a method of determining reliable and clinically significant change (RCSC) that summarises changes at the level of the individual in the context of observed changes for the whole sample.2, 3–5 Their methods are applicable, in one form or another, to the measurement of change on any continuous scale for any clinical problem, although they have been reported primarily in the psychotherapy research literature. The broad concept of reliable and clinically significant change rests on 2 questions being addressed at the level of each … read more read less

Topics:

Evidence-based practice (50%)50% related to the paper, Context (language use) (50%)50% related to the paper
View PDF
385 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1136/EBMH.1.2.37
Guidelines for evaluating prevalence studies
Michael H. Boyle1

Abstract:

As stated in the first issue of Evidence-Based Mental Health, we are planning to widen the scope of the journal to include studies answering additional types of clinical questions. One of our first priorities has been to develop criteria for studies providing information about the prevalence of psychiatric disorders, both in ... As stated in the first issue of Evidence-Based Mental Health, we are planning to widen the scope of the journal to include studies answering additional types of clinical questions. One of our first priorities has been to develop criteria for studies providing information about the prevalence of psychiatric disorders, both in the population and in specific clinical settings. We invited the following editorial from Dr Michael Boyle to highlight the key methodological issues involved in the critical appraisal of prevalence studies. The next stage is to develop valid and reliable criteria for selecting prevalence studies for inclusion in the journal. We welcome our readers contribution to this process. You are a geriatric psychiatrist providing consultation and care to elderly residents living in several nursing homes. The previous 3 patients referred to you have met criteria for depression, and you are beginning to wonder if the prevalence of this disorder is high enough to warrant screening. Alternatively, you are a child youth worker on a clinical service for disruptive behaviour disorders. It seems that all of the children being treated by the team come from economically disadvantaged families. Rather than treating these children on a case by case basis, the team has discussed developing an experimental community initiative in a low income area of the city. You are beginning to wonder if the prevalence of disruptive behaviour disorders is high enough in poor areas to justify such a programme. Prevalence studies of psychiatric disorder take a sample of respondents to estimate the frequency and distribution of these conditions in larger groups. All of these studies involve sampling, cross sectional assessments of disorder, the collection of ancillary information, and data analysis. Interest in prevalence may extend from a particular clinical setting (a narrow focus) to an entire nation (a broad focus). In … read more read less

Topics:

Population (52%)52% related to the paper, Critical appraisal (51%)51% related to the paper, Mental health (50%)50% related to the paper
View PDF
257 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1136/EBMH.2.4.99
Evaluating qualitative research
William B. Stiles1

Abstract:

Qualitative research, like all scientific research, consists of comparing ideas with observations. In good research, the ideas are thereby changed—strengthened, weakened, qualified, or elaborated. Criteria for evaluating qualitative research focus both on the process and on the product—that is, on the research methods that ar... Qualitative research, like all scientific research, consists of comparing ideas with observations. In good research, the ideas are thereby changed—strengthened, weakened, qualified, or elaborated. Criteria for evaluating qualitative research focus both on the process and on the product—that is, on the research methods that are used and on the changed ideas themselves (the interpretation). Many qualitative investigators explicitly reject the possibility of absolute objectivity and truth. The concept of objectivity is replaced by the concept of permeability , the capacity of understanding to be changed by encounters with observations. Investigators argue that we cannot view reality from outside of our own frame of reference. Instead, good practice in research seeks to ensure that understanding is permeated by observation. Investigator bias can be reframed as impermeability (interpretations not permeated by empirical observations). Good practice in reporting seeks to show readers how understanding has been changed. The traditional goal of truth of statements is replaced by the goal of understanding by people . Thus, the validity of an interpretation is always in relation to some person, and criteria for assessing validity depend on who that person is (eg, reader, investigator, research participant). Qualitative research differs from traditional quantitative research on human experience in several ways. Results are typically reported in words rather than primarily in numbers. This may take the form of narratives (eg, case studies) and typically includes a rich array of descriptive terms, rather than focusing on a few common dimensions or scales. Investigators use their (imperfect) empathic understanding of participants' inner experiences as data. Events are understood and reported in their unique context. Materials may be chosen for study because they are good examples rather than because they are representative of some larger population. Sample size and composition may be informed by emerging results (eg, cases chosen to fill … read more read less

Topics:

Research participant (55%)55% related to the paper, Objectivity (science) (54%)54% related to the paper, Qualitative research (52%)52% related to the paper, Population (51%)51% related to the paper
View PDF
221 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1136/EB-2018-102891
Clinical review of user engagement with mental health smartphone apps: evidence, theory and improvements.

Abstract:

The potential of smartphone apps to improve quality and increase access to mental health care is increasingly clear. Yet even in the current global mental health crisis, real-world uptake of smartphone apps by clinics or consumers remains low. To understand this dichotomy, this paper reviews current challenges surrounding use... The potential of smartphone apps to improve quality and increase access to mental health care is increasingly clear. Yet even in the current global mental health crisis, real-world uptake of smartphone apps by clinics or consumers remains low. To understand this dichotomy, this paper reviews current challenges surrounding user engagement with mental health smartphone apps. While smartphone engagement metrics and reporting remains heterogeneous in the literature, focusing on themes offers a framework to identify underlying trends. These themes suggest that apps are not designed with service users in mind, do not solve problems users care most about, do not respect privacy, are not seen as trustworthy and are unhelpful in emergencies. Respecting these current issues surrounding mental health app engagement, we propose several solutions and highlight successful examples of mental health apps with high engagement. Further research is necessary to better characterise engagement with mental health apps and identify best practices for design, testing and implementation. read more read less

Topics:

Global mental health (63%)63% related to the paper, Mental health (55%)55% related to the paper, Psychological intervention (54%)54% related to the paper
214 Citations
Author Pic

SciSpace is a very innovative solution to the formatting problem and existing providers, such as Mendeley or Word did not really evolve in recent years.

- Andreas Frutiger, Researcher, ETH Zurich, Institute for Biomedical Engineering

Get MS-Word and LaTeX output to any Journal within seconds
1
Choose a template
Select a template from a library of 40,000+ templates
2
Import a MS-Word file or start fresh
It takes only few seconds to import
3
View and edit your final output
SciSpace will automatically format your output to meet journal guidelines
4
Submit directly or Download
Submit to journal directly or Download in PDF, MS Word or LaTeX

(Before submission check for plagiarism via Turnitin)

clock Less than 3 minutes

What to expect from SciSpace?

Speed and accuracy over MS Word

''

With SciSpace, you do not need a word template for Evidence-Based Mental Health.

It automatically formats your research paper to BMJ Publishing Group formatting guidelines and citation style.

You can download a submission ready research paper in pdf, LaTeX and docx formats.

Time comparison

Time taken to format a paper and Compliance with guidelines

Plagiarism Reports via Turnitin

SciSpace has partnered with Turnitin, the leading provider of Plagiarism Check software.

Using this service, researchers can compare submissions against more than 170 million scholarly articles, a database of 70+ billion current and archived web pages. How Turnitin Integration works?

Turnitin Stats
Publisher Logos

Freedom from formatting guidelines

One editor, 100K journal formats – world's largest collection of journal templates

With such a huge verified library, what you need is already there.

publisher-logos

Easy support from all your favorite tools

Evidence-Based Mental Health format uses unsrt citation style.

Automatically format and order your citations and bibliography in a click.

SciSpace allows imports from all reference managers like Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote, Google Scholar etc.

Frequently asked questions

Absolutely not! With our tool, you can freely write without having to focus on LaTeX. You can write your entire paper as per the Evidence-Based Mental Health guidelines and autoformat it.

Yes. The template is fully compliant as per the guidelines of this journal. Our experts at SciSpace ensure that. Also, if there's any update in the journal format guidelines, we take care of it and include that in our algorithm.

Sure. We support all the top citation styles like APA style, MLA style, Vancouver style, Harvard style, Chicago style, etc. For example, in case of this journal, when you write your paper and hit autoformat, it will automatically update your article as per the Evidence-Based Mental Health citation style.

You can avail our Free Trial for 7 days. I'm sure you'll find our features very helpful. Plus, it's quite inexpensive.

Yup. You can choose the right template, copy-paste the contents from the word doc and click on auto-format. You'll have a publish-ready paper that you can download at the end.

A matter of seconds. Besides that, our intuitive editor saves a load of your time in writing and formating your manuscript.

One little Google search can get you the Word template for any journal. However, why do you need a Word template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace, autoformat it as per Evidence-Based Mental Health's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Try us out!.

Absolutely! You can do it using our intuitive editor. It's very easy. If you need help, you can always contact our support team.

SciSpace is an online tool for now. We'll soon release a desktop version. You can also request (or upvote) any feature that you think might be helpful for you and the research community in the feature request section once you sign-up with us.

Sure. You can request any template and we'll have it up and running within a matter of 3 working days. You can find the request box in the Journal Gallery on the right sidebar under the heading, "Couldn't find the format you were looking for?".

After you have written and autoformatted your paper, you can download it in multiple formats, viz., PDF, Docx and LaTeX.

To be honest, the answer is NO. The impact factor is one of the many elements that determine the quality of a journal. Few of those factors the review board, rejection rates, frequency of inclusion in indexes, Eigenfactor, etc. You must assess all the factors and then take the final call.

SHERPA/RoMEO Database

We have extracted this data from Sherpa Romeo to help our researchers understand the access level of this journal. The following table indicates the level of access a journal has as per Sherpa Romeo Archiving Policy.

RoMEO Colour Archiving policy
Green Can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
Blue Can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) or publisher's version/PDF
Yellow Can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing)
White Archiving not formally supported
FYI:
  1. Pre-prints as being the version of the paper before peer review and
  2. Post-prints as being the version of the paper after peer-review, with revisions having been made.

The 5 most common citation types in order of usage are:.

S. No. Citation Style Type
1. Author Year
2. Numbered
3. Numbered (Superscripted)
4. Author Year (Cited Pages)
5. Footnote

Our journal submission experts are skilled in submitting papers to various international journals.

After uploading your paper on SciSpace, you would see a button to request a journal submission service for Evidence-Based Mental Health.

Each submission service is completed within 4 - 5 working days.

Yes. SciSpace provides this functionality.

After signing up, you would need to import your existing references from Word or .bib file.

SciSpace would allow download of your references in Evidence-Based Mental Health Endnote style, according to bmj-publishing-group guidelines.

Fast and reliable,
built for complaince.

Instant formatting to 100% publisher guidelines on - SciSpace.

Available only on desktops 🖥

No word template required

Typset automatically formats your research paper to Evidence-Based Mental Health formatting guidelines and citation style.

Verifed journal formats

One editor, 100K journal formats.
With the largest collection of verified journal formats, what you need is already there.

Trusted by academicians

I spent hours with MS word for reformatting. It was frustrating - plain and simple. With SciSpace, I can draft my manuscripts and once it is finished I can just submit. In case, I have to submit to another journal it is really just a button click instead of an afternoon of reformatting.

Andreas Frutiger
Researcher & Ex MS Word user
Use this template