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 |
Tailoring Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to Subtypes of Voice-Hearing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01933 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Smailes, Ben Alderson-Day, Charles Fernyhough, Simon McCarthy-Jones, Guy Dodgson |
| Abstract |
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for voice-hearing (i.e., auditory verbal hallucinations; AVH) has, at best, small to moderate effects. One possible reason for this limited efficacy is that current CBT approaches tend to conceptualize voice-hearing as a homogenous experience in terms of the cognitive processes involved in AVH. However, the highly heterogeneous nature of voice-hearing suggests that many different cognitive processes may be involved in the etiology of AVH. These heterogeneous voice-hearing experiences do, however, appear to cluster into a set of subtypes, opening up the possibility of tailoring treatment to the subtype of AVH that a voice-hearer reports. In this paper, we (a) outline our rationale for tailoring CBT to subtypes of voice-hearing, (b) describe CBT for three putative subtypes of AVH (inner speech-based AVH, memory-based AVH, and hypervigilance AVH), and (c) discuss potential limitations and problems with such an approach. We conclude by arguing that tailoring CBT to subtypes of voice-hearing could prove to be a valuable therapeutic development, which may be especially effective when used in early intervention in psychosis services. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 Kingdom | 2 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 64% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 14% |
| Scientists | 2 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 122 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 15% |
| Researcher | 18 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 11% |
| Other | 16 | 13% |
| Unknown | 23 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 69 | 56% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 09 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,886,365
of 24,601,689 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,824
of 33,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,253
of 400,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#70
of 423 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,601,689 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 400,107 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 423 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.