| Title |
Common Barriers to the Dissemination of Exposure Therapy for Youth with Anxiety Disorders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Community Mental Health Journal, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10597-017-0108-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adam M. Reid, Maria I. Bolshakova, Andrew G. Guzick, Alyka G. Fernandez, Catherine W. Striley, Gary R. Geffken, Joseph P. McNamara |
| Abstract |
This study investigated the prevalence of common barriers to the use of exposure therapy (ET) in the treatment of youth with anxiety disorders, specifically examining both logistical limitations and negative beliefs about ET. Results from 230 practicing clinicians who treat youth with anxiety disorders found that the top three barriers were session length (56%), lack of training (48%), and concern about parent reaction (47%). Endorsement of barriers to ET was associated with less ET utilization and less optimal implementation of ET. Results suggest that several barriers, especially logistical limitations, must be addressed in order to improve the dissemination of ET. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 29 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 34 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 30 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 November 2017.
All research outputs
#13,185,127
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Community Mental Health Journal
#624
of 1,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,784
of 420,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Community Mental Health Journal
#18
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. 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 420,410 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.