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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Blended vs. face-to-face cognitive behavioural treatment for major depression in specialized mental health care: study protocol of a randomized controlled cost-effectiveness trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12888-014-0290-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lisa C Kooistra, Jenneke E Wiersma, Jeroen Ruwaard, Patricia van Oppen, Filip Smit, Joran Lokkerbol, Pim Cuijpers, Heleen Riper |
| Abstract |
BackgroundDepression is a prevalent disorder, associated with a high disease burden and substantial societal, economic and personal costs. Cognitive behavioural treatment has been shown to provide adequate treatment for depression. By offering this treatment in a blended format, in which online and face-to-face treatment are combined, it might be possible to reduce the number of costly face-to-face sessions required to deliver the treatment protocol. This could improve the cost-effectiveness of treatment, while maintaining clinical effects. This protocol describes the design of a pilot study for the evaluation of the feasibility, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of blended cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with major depressive disorder in specialized outpatient mental health care.Methods/designIn a randomized controlled trial design, adult patients with major depressive disorder are allocated to either blended cognitive behavioural treatment or traditional face-to-face cognitive behavioural treatment (treatment as usual). We aim to recruit one hundred and fifty patients. Blended treatment will consist of ten face-to-face and nine online sessions provided alternately on a weekly basis. Traditional cognitive behavioural treatment will consist of twenty weekly sessions. Costs and effects are measured at baseline and after 10, 20 and 30 weeks. Evaluations are directed at cost-effectiveness (with depression severity and diagnostic status as outcomes), and cost-utility (with costs per quality adjusted life year, QALY, as outcome). Costs will encompass health care uptake costs and productivity losses due to absence from work and lower levels of efficiency while at work. Other measures of interest are mastery, working alliance, treatment preference at baseline, depressive cognitions, treatment satisfaction and system usability.DiscussionThe results of this pilot study will provide an initial insight into the feasibility and acceptability of blended cognitive behavioural treatment in terms of clinical and economic outcomes (proof of concept) in routine specialized mental health care settings, and an indication as to whether a well-powered clinical trial of blended cognitive behavioural treatment for depression in routine practice would be advisable. This will be determined based on the perspective of various stakeholders including patients, mental health service providers and health insurers. Strengths and limitations of the study are discussed.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR4650. Registered 18 June 2014. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 282 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 280 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 50 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 46 | 16% |
| Researcher | 38 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 4% |
| Other | 36 | 13% |
| Unknown | 64 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 119 | 42% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 1% |
| Other | 25 | 9% |
| Unknown | 73 | 26% |
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 17 October 2014.
All research outputs
#20,239,689
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#4,196
of 4,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,760
of 258,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#71
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 258,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.