↓ Skip to main content

Psychological therapies for sickle cell disease and pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
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 (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
317 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
Psychological therapies for sickle cell disease and pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001916.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kofi A Anie, John Green

Abstract

Sickle cell disease comprises a group of genetic blood disorders. It occurs when the sickle haemoglobin gene is inherited from both parents. The effects of the condition are: varying degrees of anaemia which, if severe, can reduce mobility; a tendency for small blood capillaries to become blocked causing pain in muscle and bone commonly known as 'crises'; damage to major organs such as the spleen, liver, kidneys, and lungs; and increased vulnerability to severe infections. There are both medical and non-medical complications, and treatment is usually symptomatic and palliative in nature. Psychological interventions for individuals with sickle cell disease might complement current medical treatment, and studies of their efficacy have yielded encouraging results. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. To examine the evidence that psychological interventions improve the ability of people with sickle cell disease to cope with their condition. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and the Internet, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 17 February 2015. All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions with no (psychological) intervention in people with sickle cell disease. Both authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Twelve studies were identified in the searches and seven of these were eligible for inclusion in the review. Five studies, involving 260 participants, provided data for analysis. One study showed that cognitive behaviour therapy significantly reduced the affective component of pain (feelings about pain), mean difference -0.99 (95% confidence interval -1.62 to -0.36), but not the sensory component (pain intensity), mean difference 0.00 (95% confidence interval -9.39 to 9.39). One study of family psycho-education was not associated with a reduction in depression. Another study evaluating cognitive behavioural therapy had inconclusive results for the assessment of coping strategies, and showed no difference between groups assessed on health service utilisation. In addition, family home-based cognitive behavioural therapy did not show any difference compared to disease education. One study of patient education on health beliefs showed a significant improvement in attitudes towards health workers, mean difference -4.39 (95% CI -6.45 to -2.33) and medication, mean difference -1.74 (95% CI -2.98 to -0.50). Nonetheless, these results may not apply across all ages, severity of sickle cell disease, types of pain (acute or chronic), or setting. Evidence for the efficacy of psychological therapies in sickle cell disease is currently limited. This systematic review has clearly identified the need for well-designed, adequately-powered, multicentre randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of specific interventions in sickle cell disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 317 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 311 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 13%
Student > Bachelor 38 12%
Researcher 37 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 8%
Other 64 20%
Unknown 52 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 26%
Psychology 49 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 14%
Social Sciences 19 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 3%
Other 50 16%
Unknown 63 20%

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 2017.
All research outputs
#2,797,940
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,075
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,669
of 275,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#158
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 275,168 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.