↓ Skip to main content

Feedback versus no feedback in improving patient outcome in group psychotherapy for eating disorders (F-EAT): protocol for a randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 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
Feedback versus no feedback in improving patient outcome in group psychotherapy for eating disorders (F-EAT): protocol for a randomized clinical trial
Published in
Trials, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-138
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annika Helgadóttir Davidsen, Stig Poulsen, Mette Waaddegaard, Jane Lindschou, Marianne Lau

Abstract

Continuous feedback on patient improvement and the therapeutic alliance may reduce the number of dropouts and increase patient outcome. There are, however, only three published randomized trials on the effect of feedback on the treatment of eating disorders, showing inconclusive results, and there are no randomized trials on the effect of feedback in group therapy. Accordingly the current randomized clinical trial, initiated in September 2012 at the outpatient clinic for eating disorders at Stolpegaard Psychotherapy Centre, aims to investigate the impact of continuous feedback on attendance and outcome in group psychotherapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 134 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 16%
Student > Master 20 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 32 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 55 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 10%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 36 27%

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 08 May 2014.
All research outputs
#6,317,880
of 21,640,079 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,294
of 5,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,488
of 204,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,640,079 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 204,648 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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