↓ Skip to main content

Barriers to disseminating brief CBT for voices from a lived experience and clinician perspective

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
84 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.
Article details
Title
Barriers to disseminating brief CBT for voices from a lived experience and clinician perspective
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0178715
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Access to psychological therapies continues to be poor for people experiencing psychosis. To address this problem, researchers are developing brief interventions that address the specific symptoms associated with psychosis, i.e., hearing voices. As part of the development work for a brief Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) intervention for voices we collected qualitative data from people who hear voices (study 1) and clinicians (study 2) on the potential barriers and facilitators to implementation and engagement. Thematic analysis of the responses from both groups revealed a number of anticipated barriers to implementation and engagement. Both groups believed the presenting problem (voices and psychosis symptoms) may impede engagement. Furthermore clinicians identified a lack of resources to be a barrier to implementation. The only facilitator to engagement was reported by people who hear voices who believed a compassionate, experienced and trustworthy therapist would promote engagement. The results are discussed in relation to how these barriers could be addressed in the context of a brief intervention using CBT techniques.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 14%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 29 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Philosophy 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 32 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 06 October 2020.
All research outputs
#4,945,941
of 28,832,041 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#58,330
of 249,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,499
of 341,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,051
of 4,266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,832,041 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 249,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 341,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,266 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.