| Title |
Religious versus Conventional Internet-based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Religion and Health, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10943-017-0503-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bogdan Tudor Tulbure, Gerhard Andersson, Nastasia Sălăgean, Michelle Pearce, Harold G. Koenig |
| Abstract |
The accessibility and efficacy of two Internet-supported interventions for depression: conventional cognitive behavioral therapy (C-CBT) and religious CBT (R-CBT) were investigated. Depressed participants (N = 79) were randomly assigned to either active treatment or wait-listed control group. Self-report measures of depression, anxiety, and life quality were collected before, immediately after, and 6 months after the intervention. Significant differences among the three conditions emerged at post-intervention with medium to large effect sizes (Cohen's d between 0.45 and 1.89), but no differences between the R-CBT and C-CBT were found. However, the addition of religious components to CBT contributed to the initial treatment appeal for religious participants, thus increasing the treatment accessibility. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 185 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 9% |
| Researcher | 16 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 16% |
| Unknown | 62 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 55 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 10% |
| Unknown | 69 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 February 2019.
All research outputs
#19,400,321
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Religion and Health
#1,065
of 1,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,049
of 330,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Religion and Health
#17
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,973 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.