↓ Skip to main content

Negative Effects of Psychological Treatments: An Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Negative Effects Questionnaire for Monitoring and Reporting Adverse and Unwanted Events

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
145 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
255 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
Negative Effects of Psychological Treatments: An Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Negative Effects Questionnaire for Monitoring and Reporting Adverse and Unwanted Events
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0157503
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Rozental, Anders Kottorp, Johanna Boettcher, Gerhard Andersson, Per Carlbring

Abstract

Research conducted during the last decades has provided increasing evidence for the use of psychological treatments for a number of psychiatric disorders and somatic complaints. However, by focusing only on the positive outcomes, less attention has been given to the potential of negative effects. Despite indications of deterioration and other adverse and unwanted events during treatment, little is known about their occurrence and characteristics. Hence, in order to facilitate research of negative effects, a new instrument for monitoring and reporting their incidence and impact was developed using a consensus among researchers, self-reports by patients, and a literature review: the Negative Effects Questionnaire. Participants were recruited via a smartphone-delivered self-help treatment for social anxiety disorder and through the media (N = 653). An exploratory factor analysis was performed, resulting in a six-factor solution with 32 items, accounting for 57.64% of the variance. The derived factors were: symptoms, quality, dependency, stigma, hopelessness, and failure. Items related to unpleasant memories, stress, and anxiety were experienced by more than one-third of the participants. Further, increased or novel symptoms, as well as lack of quality in the treatment and therapeutic relationship rendered the highest self-reported negative impact. In addition, the findings were discussed in relation to prior research and other similar instruments of adverse and unwanted events, giving credence to the items that are included. The instrument is presently available in eleven different languages and can be freely downloaded and used from www.neqscale.com.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 255 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 254 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 17%
Researcher 32 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 13%
Student > Bachelor 25 10%
Other 12 5%
Other 40 16%
Unknown 70 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 111 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 3%
Neuroscience 6 2%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 82 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 20 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,025,593
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#13,135
of 225,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,308
of 374,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#268
of 4,602 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 374,660 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,602 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 94% of its contemporaries.