↓ Skip to main content

Behavioural therapies versus other psychological therapies for depression

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
31 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
299 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Behavioural therapies versus other psychological therapies for depression
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008696.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kiyomi Shinohara, Mina Honyashiki, Hissei Imai, Vivien Hunot, Deborah M Caldwell, Philippa Davies, Theresa HM Moore, Toshi A Furukawa, Rachel Churchill

Abstract

Behavioural therapies represent one of several categories of psychological therapies that are currently used in the treatment of depression. However, the effectiveness and acceptability of behavioural therapies for depression compared with other psychological therapies remain unclear.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 299 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 293 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 51 17%
Student > Master 49 16%
Student > Bachelor 39 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 10%
Other 59 20%
Unknown 37 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 108 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 81 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 6%
Social Sciences 15 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 21 7%
Unknown 49 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 14 May 2020.
All research outputs
#620,210
of 15,089,533 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,746
of 11,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,911
of 186,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,089,533 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 11,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 186,104 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.