↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of minimal guided and unguided internet-based mobile supported stress-management in employees with occupational stress: a three-armed randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
370 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
Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of minimal guided and unguided internet-based mobile supported stress-management in employees with occupational stress: a three-armed randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-14-807
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Daniel Ebert, Dirk Lehr, Filip Smit, Anna-Carlotta Zarski, Heleen Riper, Elena Heber, Pim Cuijpers, Matthias Berking

Abstract

Internet- and mobile based stress-management interventions (iSMI) may be an effective means to address the negative consequences of occupational stress. However, available results from randomised controlled trials are conflicting. Moreover, it is yet not clear whether guided or unguided self-help iSMI provide better value for money. Internet-based mental health interventions without guidance are often much less effective than interventions including at least some guidance from a professional. However, direct comparisons in randomised controlled trials are scarce and, to the best of our knowledge, the comparative (cost)-effectiveness of guided vs. unguided iSMI has not yet been studied. Hence, this study investigates the acceptability and (cost-) effectiveness of minimal guided and unguided iSMI in employees with heightened levels of perceived stress.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 370 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 368 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 61 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 16%
Researcher 45 12%
Student > Bachelor 40 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 31 8%
Other 55 15%
Unknown 79 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 127 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 41 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 8%
Social Sciences 19 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 2%
Other 51 14%
Unknown 95 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 August 2015.
All research outputs
#14,783,222
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,874
of 14,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,599
of 230,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#203
of 277 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,834 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 230,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 277 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.