↓ Skip to main content

Smartphone-Supported versus Full Behavioural Activation for Depression: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
366 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
Smartphone-Supported versus Full Behavioural Activation for Depression: A Randomised Controlled Trial
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0126559
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kien Hoa Ly, Naira Topooco, Hanna Cederlund, Anna Wallin, Jan Bergström, Olof Molander, Per Carlbring, Gerhard Andersson

Abstract

There is need for more cost and time effective treatments for depression. This is the first randomised controlled trial in which a blended treatment - including four face-to-face sessions and a smartphone application - was compared against a full behavioural treatment. Hence, the aim of the current paper was to examine whether a blended smartphone treatment was non-inferior to a full behavioural activation treatment for depression. This was a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (NCT01819025) comparing a blended treatment (n=46) against a full ten-session treatment (n=47) for people suffering from major depression. Primary outcome measure was the BDI-II, that was administered at pre- and post-treatment, as well as six months after the treatment. Results showed significant improvements in both groups across time on the primary outcome measure (within-group Cohen's d=1.35; CI [-0.82, 3.52] to d=1.47; CI [-0.41, 3.35]; between group d=-0.13 CI [-2.37, 2.09] and d=-0.10 CI [-2.53, 2.33]). At the same time, the blended treatment reduced the therapist time with an average of 47%. We could not establish whether the blended treatment was non-inferior to a full BA treatment. Nevertheless, this study points to that the blended treatment approach could possibly treat nearly twice as many patients suffering from depression by using a smartphone applica¬tion as add-on. More studies are needed before we can suggest that the blended treatment method is a promising cost-effective alternative to regular face-to-face treatment for depression. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Treatment of Depression With Smartphone Support NCT01819025.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 366 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 360 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 66 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 14%
Researcher 35 10%
Student > Bachelor 35 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 7%
Other 60 16%
Unknown 92 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 122 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 47 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 5%
Computer Science 20 5%
Social Sciences 15 4%
Other 32 9%
Unknown 110 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 27 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,393,844
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#18,065
of 199,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,672
of 267,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#535
of 6,852 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 199,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 267,895 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,852 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.