↓ Skip to main content

Effects of a mutual recovery intervention on mental health in depressed elderly community-dwelling adults: a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
Effects of a mutual recovery intervention on mental health in depressed elderly community-dwelling adults: a pilot study
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3930-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chao Wang, Yujie Hua, Hua Fu, Longfeng Cheng, Wen Qian, Junyang Liu, Paul Crawford, Junming Dai

Abstract

The prevalence of depression in the elderly is growing worldwide, and the population aging in China makes depression a major health problem for the elderly adults and a tremendous burden to the society. Effective interventions should be determined to provide an approach solving the problem and improving the situation. This study examined the effectiveness of a mutual recovery program intervention on depressive symptom, sleep quality, and well-being in community-dwelling elderly adults with depressive symptom in Shanghai. Recruitment was performed between July 2012 and August 2012. Using a cluster randomized wait-list controlled design, we randomized 6 communities (n = 237) into either the intervention group (3 communities, n = 105) or to a wait-list control group (3 communities, n = 132). All participants met the inclusion criteria for depression, which were defined by The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15). From March to May of 2013, participants in the intervention group underwent a 2-month mutual recovery program intervention. The intervention included seven 90-min, weekly sessions that were based on a standardized self-designed schedule. Depression was used as primary outcome at three measurement moments: baseline (T1), before intervention at 24 weeks (T2), and immediately after intervention at 32 weeks (T3). Well-being and sleep quality were used as the secondary outcomes, and were evaluated based on the WHO-5 Well-being Index (WHO-5) and the Self-administered Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ). Finally, a total of 225 participants who completed all the sessions and the three measurements entered the final analysis. Mixed-model repeated measures ANOVAs were performed to estimate the intervention effects. There was no significant difference in gender, marriage, age structure, post-work type, and education background between the intervention and control group at baseline. Multivariate ANOVAs showed that there was no significant difference within the groups in terms of sleep, well-being, and depression at baseline and before the intervention. Mixed-model repeated measures ANOVAs detected a group × time interaction on depression, sleep, and well-being and showed a favorable intervention effect within groups immediately after the intervention. The mutual recovery program could be a creative and effective approach to improve mental health in older community-dwelling adults with depressive symptom.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 36 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 16%
Psychology 18 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 13%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Sports and Recreations 7 6%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 38 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 28 June 2017.
All research outputs
#7,284,512
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,584
of 15,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,733
of 425,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#113
of 225 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 425,815 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 225 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.