↓ Skip to main content

Blended CBT versus face-to-face CBT: a randomised non-inferiority trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, December 2016
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 (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 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
Blended CBT versus face-to-face CBT: a randomised non-inferiority trial
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-1140-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kim Mathiasen, Tonny E. Andersen, Heleen Riper, Annet A. M. Kleiboer, Kirsten K. Roessler

Abstract

Internet based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) has been demonstrated to be cost- and clinically effective. There is a need, however, for increased therapist contact for some patient groups. Combining iCBT with traditional face-to-face (ftf) consultations in a blended format (B-CBT) may produce a new treatment format with multiple benefits from both traditional CBT and iCBT such as individual adaptation, lower costs than traditional therapy, wide geographical and temporal availability, and possibly lower threshold to implementation. The primary aim of the present study is to compare directly the clinical effectiveness of B-CBT with face-to-face CBT for adult major depressive disorder. The study is designed as a two arm randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing blended CBT for adult depression with treatment as usual (TAU). In the blended condition six sessions of ftf CBT is alternated with six to eight online modules (NoDep). TAU is defined as 12 sessions of ftf CBT. The primary outcome is symptomatic change of depressive symptoms on the patient-health questionnaire (PHQ-9). Additionally, the study will include an economic evaluation. All participants must be 18 years of age or older and meet the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders 4th edition. Participants are randomised on an individual level by a researcher not involved in the project. The primary outcome is analysed by regressing the three-month follow-up PHQ-9 data on the baseline PHQ-9 score and a treatment group indicator using ancova. A sample size of 130 in two balanced groups will yield a power of at least 80% to detect standardised mean differences above 0.5 on a normally distributed variable. This study design will compare B-CBT and ftf CBT in a concise and direct manner with only a minimal of the variance explained by differences in therapeutic content. On the other hand, while situated in routine care, ecological validity is somewhat compromised by the controlled manner in which the study is conducted. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02796573 . Registered June 1st 2016. Currently recruiting participants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 186 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 16%
Researcher 29 15%
Student > Bachelor 28 15%
Student > Postgraduate 7 4%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 36 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 67 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 14%
Social Sciences 16 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 45 24%

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 09 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,402,418
of 14,537,474 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,313
of 3,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,091
of 380,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#126
of 432 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,537,474 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 3,390 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 380,151 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 432 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.