↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility and challenges of inpatient psychotherapy for psychosis: lessons learned from a veterans health administration pilot randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Feasibility and challenges of inpatient psychotherapy for psychosis: lessons learned from a veterans health administration pilot randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Research Notes, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2179-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew Tyler Boden, Brandon A. Gaudiano, Robyn D. Walser, Christine Timko, William Faustman, Sarah Yasmin, Ruth C. Cronkite, Marcel O. Bonn-Miller, John F. McCarthy

Abstract

In large health care systems, decision regarding broad implementation of psychotherapies for inpatients with psychosis require substantial evidence regarding effectiveness and feasibility for implementation. It is important to recognize challenges in conducting research to inform such decisions, including difficulties in obtaining consent from and engaging inpatients with psychosis in research. We set out to conduct a feasibility and effectiveness Hybrid Type I pilot randomized controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and a semi-formative evaluation of barriers and facilitators to implementation. We developed a training protocol and refined an ACT treatment manual for inpatient treatment of psychosis for use at the Veterans Health Administration. While our findings on feasibility were mixed, we obtained supportive evidence of the acceptability and safety of ACT. Identified strengths of ACT included a focus on achievement of valued goals rather than symptoms. Weaknesses included that symptoms may limit patient's understanding of ACT. Facilitators included building trust and multi-stage informed consent processes. Barriers included restrictive eligibility criteria, rigid use of a manualized protocol, and individual therapy format. Conclusions are limited by our randomization of only 18 patient participants (with nine completing all aspects of the study) out of 80 planned. Future studies should include (1) multi-stage informed consent processes to build trust and alleviate patient fears, (2) relaxation of restrictions associated with obtaining efficacy/effectiveness data, and (3) use of Hybrid Type II and III designs.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 103 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Other 7 7%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 28 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 39 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Unspecified 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 36 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,381,002
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#2,317
of 4,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,736
of 365,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#47
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,269 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 365,577 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.