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 |
Low intensity interventions for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD): a qualitative study of mental health practitioner experiences
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12888-017-1238-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Judith Gellatly, Rebecca Pedley, Christine Molloy, Jennifer Butler, Karina Lovell, Penny Bee |
| Abstract |
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating mental health disorder that can substantially impact upon quality of life and everyday functioning. Guidelines recommend pharmacological and psychological treatments, using a cognitive behaviour therapy approach (CBT) including exposure and response prevention, but access has generally been poor. Low intensity psychological interventions have been advocated. The evidence base for these interventions is emerging but there is a paucity of information regarding practitioners' perceptions and experiences of supporting individuals with OCD using this approach. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with psychological wellbeing practitioners (PWPs) (n = 20) delivering low intensity psychological interventions for adults with OCD within the context of a large pragmatic effectiveness trial. Interviews explored the feasibility and acceptability of delivering two interventions; guided self-help and supported computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT), within Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services in NHS Trusts. Interviews were recorded with consent, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. PWPs acknowledged the benefits of low intensity psychological interventions for individuals experiencing OCD symptoms on an individual and population level. Offering low intensity support provided was perceived to have the opportunity to overcome existing service barriers to access treatment, improve patient choice and flexibility. Professional and service relevant issues were also recognised including self-beliefs about supporting people with OCD and personal training needs. Challenges to implementation were recognised in relation to practitioner resistance and intervention delivery technical complications. This study has provided insight into the implementation of new low intensity approaches to the management of OCD within existing mental health services. Benefits from a practitioner, service and patient perspective are identified and potential challenges highlighted. Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN73535163 . Date of registration: 5 April 2011. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 3 | 50% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 83% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 158 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 15% |
| Researcher | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 25 | 16% |
| Unknown | 43 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 56 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 16 | 10% |
| Unknown | 47 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,387,676
of 22,955,959 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,225
of 4,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,447
of 311,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#52
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,955,959 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. 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 311,194 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 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 50% of its contemporaries.