↓ Skip to main content

The Efficacy of Behavioral Treatments for Hypertension

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, March 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
125 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 Efficacy of Behavioral Treatments for Hypertension
Published in
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, March 2006
DOI 10.1007/s10484-006-9004-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wolfgang Linden, Janine V. Moseley

Abstract

Evidence is reviewed for the efficacy of behavioral treatments for hypertension. The format chosen here is a review of reviews given that numerous consensus committee reports and quantitative reviews on the topic have been published. Extensive evidence from over 100 randomized controlled trials indicates that behavioral treatments reduce blood pressure (BP) to a modest degree, and this change is greater than what is seen in wait-list or other inactive controls. Effect sizes are quite variable. The observed BP reductions are much greater when BP levels were high at pre-test, and behavioral studies tend to underestimate possible benefits because of floor effects in their protocols. Blood pressure measured in the office may be confounded with measurement habituation. Multi-component, individualized psychological treatments lead to greater BP changes than do single-component treatments. Among biofeedback treatments, thermal feedback and electrodermal activity feedback fare better than EMG or direct BP feedback, which tend to produce null effects. There continues to be a scarcity of strong protocols that properly control for floor effects and potential measurement confounds.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Iceland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 119 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 14%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 11%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 23 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 26%
Psychology 32 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 24 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 29 July 2011.
All research outputs
#4,983,982
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback
#102
of 355 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,680
of 67,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 355 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 67,615 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 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.