↓ Skip to main content

Collaborative care for anxiety disorders in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Collaborative care for anxiety disorders in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Family Practice, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12875-016-0466-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna DT Muntingh, Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis, Harm WJ van Marwijk, Philip Spinhoven, Anton JLM van Balkom

Abstract

Studies evaluating collaborative care for anxiety disorders are recently emerging. A systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effect of collaborative care for adult patients with anxiety disorders in primary care is therefore warranted. A literature search was performed. PubMed, Psycinfo, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane library. Randomized controlled trials examining the effects of collaborative care for adult primary care patients with an anxiety disorder, compared to care as usual or another intervention. Synthesis methods: Standardized mean differences (SMD) on an anxiety scale closest to twelve months follow-up were calculated and pooled in a random effects meta-analysis. Of the 3073 studies found, seven studies were included with a total of 2105 participants. Included studies were of moderate to high quality. Collaborative care was superior to care as usual, with a small effect size (SMD = 0.35 95 % CI 0.14-0.56) for all anxiety disorders combined and a moderate effect size (SMD = 0.59, 95 % CI 0.41-0.78) in a subgroup analysis (five studies) on patients with panic disorder. Collaborative care seems to be a promising strategy for improving primary care for anxiety disorders, in particular panic disorder. However, the number of studies is still small and further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness in other anxiety disorders.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 11 18%
Student > Master 10 17%
Unspecified 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 12%
Professor 6 10%
Other 18 30%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Unspecified 7 12%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Psychology 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 3 5%

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 03 June 2016.
All research outputs
#3,287,651
of 7,849,747 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#533
of 988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,499
of 269,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,849,747 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 57th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 269,380 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.