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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Psychosocial Interventions and Wellbeing in Individuals with Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02063 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michaela C. Pascoe, David R. Thompson, David J. Castle, Zoe M. Jenkins, Chantal F. Ski |
| Abstract |
Purpose: A number of studies, including systematic reviews, show beneficial effects of psychosocial interventions for people with diabetes mellitus; however, they have not been assessed using meta-analysis. The purpose of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials is to investigate the effects of psychosocial interventions on depressive and anxiety symptoms, quality of life and self-efficacy in individuals with diabetes mellitus. Methods: The databases Pubmed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and SocINDEX were searched with no year restriction. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials published in English that included individuals diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, aged 18 years or above, who engaged in a psychosocial intervention, with outcome measures addressing depressive or anxiety symptomology, quality of life or self-efficacy. Eligible studies needed to compare the intervention to usual care. Study selection was completed using Covidence and meta-analysis was undertaken using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Results: Seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Five studies investigated the effects of psychosocial interventions and showed a medium to large benefit for depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.70; CI: -1.27, -0.13) which persisted at follow up (SMD: -1.54, CI: -2.97, -0.12). Similar results were not seen immediately post-intervention in the three studies that assessed anxiety symptoms (SMD: -0.30; CI: -0.69, 0.10); however, a medium beneficial effect was seen at follow up (SMD = -0.61, CI = -0.92 to -0.31). Small benefits were seen in the three studies assessing quality of life outcomes (SMD: 0.30, CI: 0.06, 0.55). No benefit was seen in the two studies assessing self-efficacy (SMD: 0.23, CI: -0.11, 0.57). Conclusions: The results of the current study provide preliminary evidence that psychosocial interventions, compared to usual care, reduce depressive symptoms, and may improve quality of life in individuals with diabetes. However, only a few studies were included and the clinical significance of these findings is unknown. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 114 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 14% |
| Researcher | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 21 | 18% |
| Unknown | 36 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 27 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Unknown | 42 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 November 2018.
All research outputs
#14,552,599
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,502
of 30,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,137
of 441,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#324
of 528 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,973 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 441,214 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 528 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.