↓ Skip to main content

Patient preference in psychological treatment and associations with self-reported outcome: national cross-sectional survey in England and Wales

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
15 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
35 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Patient preference in psychological treatment and associations with self-reported outcome: national cross-sectional survey in England and Wales
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-015-0702-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan Williams, Lorna Farquharson, Lucy Palmer, Paul Bassett, Jeremy Clarke, David M. Clark, Mike J. Crawford

Abstract

Providers of psychological therapies are encouraged to offer patients choice about their treatment, but there is very little information about what preferences people have or the impact that meeting these has on treatment outcomes. Cross-sectional survey of people receiving psychological treatment from 184 NHS services in England and Wales. 14,587 respondents were asked about treatment preferences and the extent to which these were met by their service. They were also asked to rate the extent to which therapy helped them cope with their difficulties. Most patients (12,549-86.0 %, 95 % CI: 85.5-86.6) expressed a preference for at least one aspect of their treatment. Of these, 4,600 (36.7 %, 95 % CI: 35.8-37.5) had at least one preference that was not met. While most patients reported that their preference for appointment times, venue and type of treatment were met, only 1,769 (40.5 %) of the 4,253 that had a preference for gender had it met. People who expressed a preference that was not met reported poorer outcomes than those with a preference that was met (Odds Ratios: appointment times = 0.29, venue = 0.32, treatment type = 0.16, therapist gender = 0.32, language in which treatment was delivered = 0.40). Most patients who took part in this survey had preferences about their treatment. People who reported preferences that were not met were less likely to state that treatment had helped them with their problems. Routinely assessing and meeting patient preferences may improve the outcomes of psychological treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 19 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 47 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 26 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 146. 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 04 January 2017.
All research outputs
#266,196
of 24,385,762 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#66
of 5,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,781
of 405,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#3
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,385,762 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,130 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 405,116 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 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 97% of its contemporaries.