The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Feedback versus no feedback in improving patient outcome in group psychotherapy for eating disorders (F-EAT): protocol for a randomized clinical trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-15-138 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annika Helgadóttir Davidsen, Stig Poulsen, Mette Waaddegaard, Jane Lindschou, Marianne Lau |
| Abstract |
Continuous feedback on patient improvement and the therapeutic alliance may reduce the number of dropouts and increase patient outcome. There are, however, only three published randomized trials on the effect of feedback on the treatment of eating disorders, showing inconclusive results, and there are no randomized trials on the effect of feedback in group therapy. Accordingly the current randomized clinical trial, initiated in September 2012 at the outpatient clinic for eating disorders at Stolpegaard Psychotherapy Centre, aims to investigate the impact of continuous feedback on attendance and outcome in group psychotherapy. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 148 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 17% |
| Unknown | 44 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 58 | 39% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Unknown | 47 | 32% |
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 08 May 2014.
All research outputs
#15,198,440
of 26,367,288 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#3,374
of 6,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,293
of 243,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#45
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,367,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 243,206 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 50% 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 55% of its contemporaries.