↓ Skip to main content

The use of videoconferencing with patients with psychosis: a review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of General Psychiatry, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

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.
Title
The use of videoconferencing with patients with psychosis: a review of the literature
Published in
Annals of General Psychiatry, April 2011
DOI 10.1186/1744-859x-10-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian R Sharp, Kenneth A Kobak, Douglas A Osman

Abstract

Videoconferencing has become an increasingly viable tool in psychiatry, with a growing body of literature on its use with a range of patient populations. A number of factors make it particularly well suited for patients with psychosis. For example, patients living in remote or underserved areas can be seen by a specialist without need for travel. However, the hallmark symptoms of psychotic disorders might lead one to question the feasibility of videoconferencing with these patients. For example, does videoconferencing exacerbate delusions, such as paranoia or delusions of reference? Are acutely psychotic patients willing to be interviewed remotely by videoconferencing? To address these and other issues, we conducted an extensive review of Medline, PsychINFO, and the Telemedicine Information Exchange databases for literature on videoconferencing and psychosis. Findings generally indicated that assessment and treatment via videoconferencing is equivalent to in person and is tolerated and well accepted. There is little evidence that patients with psychosis have difficulty with videoconferencing or experience any exacerbation of symptoms; in fact, there is some evidence to suggest that the distance afforded can be a positive factor. The results of two large clinical trials support the reliability and effectiveness of centralized remote assessment of patients with schizophrenia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
India 1 1%
Unknown 82 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 22 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 25%
Psychology 21 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 21 25%
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 30 October 2020.
All research outputs
#4,688,066
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Annals of General Psychiatry
#141
of 567 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,277
of 125,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of General Psychiatry
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 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 567 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 125,016 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them