↓ Skip to main content

Selecting, training and supervising nurses to treat depression in the medically ill: experience and recommendations from the SMaRT oncology collaborative care trials

Overview of attention for article published in General Hospital Psychiatry, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Selecting, training and supervising nurses to treat depression in the medically ill: experience and recommendations from the SMaRT oncology collaborative care trials
Published in
General Hospital Psychiatry, November 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2015.06.014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marta Wanat, Jane Walker, Laura Hodges, Alison Richardson, Michael Sharpe

Abstract

Collaborative care programs to treat comorbid depression in the medically ill often have general (nonpsychiatric) nurses care managers. In this paper, we aim to provide practical recommendations for their selection, training and supervision. Based on more than 10 years of experience of selecting, training and supervising general nurses to deliver a highly effective collaborative care programme called "Depression Care for People with Cancer," we describe the problems encountered and the solutions adopted to optimize the selection, training and supervision of nurse care managers. To select nurses for the role of care manager, we found that role plays enabled us to assess nurses' ability to interact with distressed patients and their capacity for self-reflection better than simple interviews. To train the nurses, we found that a structured program that mirrored the treatment manual and included simulated practice was best. To achieve effective supervision, we found that having sessions led by senior psychiatrists facilitated both constructive feedback to the nurses and effective review of the management of cases. We recommend that the selection, training and supervision of general nurses use the strategies outlined if they are to maximize the benefit that patients achieve from collaborative care programs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 15%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Other 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 22%
Psychology 5 19%
Unspecified 3 11%
Computer Science 2 7%
Other 4 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 July 2015.
All research outputs
#6,298,919
of 12,232,438 outputs
Outputs from General Hospital Psychiatry
#564
of 1,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,869
of 237,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from General Hospital Psychiatry
#9
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,232,438 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,208 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 237,568 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.