| Title |
Treatment Protocols for Eating Disorders: Clinicians’ Attitudes, Concerns, Adherence and Difficulties Delivering Evidence-Based Psychological Interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Psychiatry Reports, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11920-016-0679-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Glenn Waller |
| Abstract |
There are several protocols in existence that guide clinicians in the implementation of effective, evidence-based psychological interventions for eating disorders. These have been made accessible in the form of treatment manuals. However, relatively few clinicians use those protocols, preferring to offer more eclectic or integrative approaches. Following a summary of the research that shows that these evidence-based approaches can be used successfully in routine clinical settings, this review considers why there is such poor uptake of these therapies in such settings. This review focuses on the role of service culture and on clinicians' own attitudes, beliefs and emotions. Possible means of enhancing uptake are considered, but these cannot be considered to be ideal solutions at present. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ecuador | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 131 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 15% |
| Unknown | 31 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 57 | 44% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 38 | 29% |
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 09 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,540,085
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Current Psychiatry Reports
#557
of 1,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,748
of 299,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Psychiatry Reports
#25
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 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 1,206 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 299,152 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.