↓ Skip to main content

Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for patients with heart failure and depressive symptoms: A proof of concept study

Overview of attention for article published in Patient Education & Counseling, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 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
Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for patients with heart failure and depressive symptoms: A proof of concept study
Published in
Patient Education & Counseling, April 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2015.04.013
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

The aim was (1) to describe the development of a guided internet-based CBT (ICBT) program adapted to patients with heart failure (HF) and (2) to evaluate the feasibility of the ICBT program in regard to depressive symptoms, the time used by health care providers to give feedback, and participants' perceptions of the ICBT program. A multi-professional team developed the program and seven HF patients with depressive symptoms were recruited to the study. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating-Self-rating scale (MADRS-S) were used to measure depression, and patients were interviewed about their perceptions of the program. Based on research in HF and CBT, a nine-week program was developed. The median depression score decreased from baseline to the end of the study (PHQ-9: 11-8.5; MADRS-S: 25.5-16.5) and none of the depression scores worsened. Feedback from health care providers required approximately 3h per patient. Facilitating perceptions (e.g. freedom of time) and demanding perceptions (e.g. part of the program demanded a lot of work) were described by the patients. The program appears feasible and time-efficient. However, the program needs to be evaluated in a larger randomized study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 133 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 16%
Researcher 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 31 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 37 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Computer Science 6 4%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 32 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 29 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,205,295
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient Education & Counseling
#1,525
of 4,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,195
of 279,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient Education & Counseling
#26
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,167 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 279,958 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 55% of its contemporaries.