↓ Skip to main content

The Effect of Guided Web-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on Patients With Depressive Symptoms and Heart Failure: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Internet 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 (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
297 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Effect of Guided Web-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on Patients With Depressive Symptoms and Heart Failure: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
Journal of Medical Internet Research, August 2016
DOI 10.2196/jmir.5556
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johan Gustav Lundgren, Örjan Dahlström, Gerhard Andersson, Tiny Jaarsma, Anita Kärner Köhler, Peter Johansson

Abstract

Depressive symptoms, and the associated coexistence of symptoms of anxiety and decreased quality of life (QoL), are common in patients with heart failure (HF). However, treatment strategies for depressive symptoms in patients with HF still remain to be established. Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT), as guided self-help CBT programs, has shown good effects in the treatment of depression. Until now, ICBT has not been evaluated in patients with HF with depressive symptoms. The aims of this study were to (1) evaluate the effect of a 9-week guided ICBT program on depressive symptoms in patients with HF; (2) investigate the effect of the ICBT program on cardiac anxiety and QoL; and (3) assess factors associated with the change in depressive symptoms. Fifty participants were randomized into 2 treatment arms: ICBT or a Web-based moderated discussion forum (DF). The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 was used to measure depressive symptoms, the Cardiac Anxiety Questionnaire (CAQ) was used to measure cardiac-related anxiety, and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire was used to measure QoL. Data were collected at baseline and at follow-up at the end of the 9-week intervention. Intention-to-treat analysis was used, and missing data were imputed by the Expectation-Maximization method. Between-group differences were determined by analysis of covariance with control for baseline score and regression to the mean. No significant difference in depressive symptoms between the ICBT and the DF group at the follow-up was found, [F(1,47)=1.63, P=.21] and Cohen´s d=0.26. Secondary within-group analysis of depressive symptoms showed that such symptoms decreased significantly in the ICBT group from baseline to the follow-up (baseline M=10.8, standard deviation [SD]=5.7 vs follow-up M=8.6, SD=4.6, t(24)=2.6, P=.02, Cohen´s d=0.43), whereas in the DF group, there was no significant change (baseline M=10.6, SD=5.0, vs follow-up M=9.8, SD=4.3, t(24)=0.93, P=.36. Cohen´s d=0.18). With regard to CAQ and QoL no significant differences were found between the groups (CAQ [d(1,47)=0.5, P=.48] and QoL [F(1,47)=2.87, P=.09]). In the ICBT group in the CAQ subscale of fear, a significant within-group decrease was shown (baseline M=1.55 vs follow-up M=1.35, P=.04). In the ICBT group, the number of logins to the Web portal correlated significantly with improvement in depressive symptoms (P=.02), whereas higher age (P=.01) and male sex (P=.048) were associated with less change in depressive symptoms. This study is underpowered because of difficulties in the recruitment of patients. Guided ICBT adapted for persons with HF and depressive symptoms was not statistically superior to participation in a Web-based DF. However, within the ICBT group, a statically significant improvement of depressive symptoms was detected. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01681771; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01681771 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6ikzbcuLN).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users 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 297 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 294 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 14%
Researcher 34 11%
Student > Bachelor 25 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Other 43 14%
Unknown 85 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 73 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 13%
Social Sciences 13 4%
Computer Science 8 3%
Other 25 8%
Unknown 96 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 December 2017.
All research outputs
#5,448,088
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#3,811
of 7,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,516
of 381,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#69
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 381,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.