Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Ng, Fiona

  • Google
  • 1
  • 13
  • 6

University of Nottingham

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2023Differences Between Online Trial Participants Who Have Used Statutory Mental Health Services and Those Who Have Not: Analysis of Baseline Data From 2 Pragmatic Trials of a Digital Health Intervention6citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Rennick-Egglestone, Stefan
1 / 1 shared
Hall, Charlotte L.
1 / 1 shared
Newby, Chris
1 / 1 shared
Gavan, Sean P.
1 / 2 shared
Fox Yeo, Caroline
1 / 1 shared
Cuijpers, Pim
1 / 1 shared
Ali, Yasmin H. K.
1 / 1 shared
Slade, Mike
1 / 2 shared
Robinson, Clare
1 / 1 shared
Priebe, Stefan
1 / 2 shared
Pomberth, Scott
1 / 1 shared
Llewellyn-Beardsley, Joy
1 / 1 shared
Harrison, Julian
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2023

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Rennick-Egglestone, Stefan
  • Hall, Charlotte L.
  • Newby, Chris
  • Gavan, Sean P.
  • Fox Yeo, Caroline
  • Cuijpers, Pim
  • Ali, Yasmin H. K.
  • Slade, Mike
  • Robinson, Clare
  • Priebe, Stefan
  • Pomberth, Scott
  • Llewellyn-Beardsley, Joy
  • Harrison, Julian
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Differences Between Online Trial Participants Who Have Used Statutory Mental Health Services and Those Who Have Not: Analysis of Baseline Data From 2 Pragmatic Trials of a Digital Health Intervention

  • Rennick-Egglestone, Stefan
  • Hall, Charlotte L.
  • Newby, Chris
  • Ng, Fiona
  • Gavan, Sean P.
  • Fox Yeo, Caroline
  • Cuijpers, Pim
  • Ali, Yasmin H. K.
  • Slade, Mike
  • Robinson, Clare
  • Priebe, Stefan
  • Pomberth, Scott
  • Llewellyn-Beardsley, Joy
  • Harrison, Julian
Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Digital health interventions (DHIs) are an established element of mental health service provision internationally. Regulators have positioned the best practice standard of evidence as an interventional study with a comparator reflective of standard care, often operationalized as a pragmatic trial. DHIs can extend health provision to those not currently using mental health services. Hence, for external validity, trials might openly recruit a mixture of people who have used mental health services and people who have not. Prior research has demonstrated phenomenological differences in mental health experience between these groups. Some differences between service users and nonservice users might influence the change created by DHIs; hence, research should systematically examine these differences to inform intervention development and evaluation work. This paper analyzes baseline data collected in the NEON (Narrative Experiences Online; ie, for people with experience of psychosis) and NEON-O (NEON for other [eg, nonpsychosis] mental health problems) trials. These were pragmatic trials of a DHI that openly recruited people who had used specialist mental health services and those who had not. All participants were experiencing mental health distress. NEON Trial participants had experienced psychosis in the previous 5 years.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Objective</jats:title><jats:p>This study aims to identify differences in baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with specialist mental health service use for NEON Trial and NEON-O Trial participants.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>For both trials, hypothesis testing was used to compare baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of participants in the intention-to-treat sample who had used specialist mental health services and those who had not. Bonferroni correction was applied to significance thresholds to account for multiple testing.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Significant differences in characteristics were identified in both trials. Compared with nonservice users (124/739, 16.8%), NEON Trial specialist service users (609/739, 82.4%) were more likely to be female (P&lt;.001), older (P&lt;.001), and White British (P&lt;.001), with lower quality of life (P&lt;.001) and lower health status (P=.002). There were differences in geographical distribution (P&lt;.001), employment (P&lt;.001; more unemployment), current mental health problems (P&lt;.001; more psychosis and personality disorders), and recovery status (P&lt;.001; more recovered). Current service users were more likely to be experiencing psychosis than prior service users. Compared with nonservice users (399/1023, 39%), NEON-O Trial specialist service users (614/1023, 60.02%) had differences in employment (P&lt;.001; more unemployment) and current mental health problems (P&lt;.001; more personality disorders), with lower quality of life (P&lt;.001), more distress (P&lt;.001), less hope (P&lt;.001), less empowerment (P&lt;.001), less meaning in life (P&lt;.001), and lower health status (P&lt;.001).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Mental health service use history was associated with numerous differences in baseline characteristics. Investigators should account for service use in work to develop and evaluate interventions for populations with mixed service use histories.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)</jats:title><jats:p>RR2-10.1186/s13063-020-04428-6</jats:p></jats:sec>

Topics
  • laser emission spectroscopy
  • size-exclusion chromatography