↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive behavioral group therapy for patients with physical diseases and comorbid depressive or adjustment disorders on a waiting list for individual therapy: results from a randomized controlled…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
Cognitive behavioral group therapy for patients with physical diseases and comorbid depressive or adjustment disorders on a waiting list for individual therapy: results from a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12888-017-1494-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miriam Ruesch, Almut Helmes, Juergen Bengel

Abstract

Depressive and adjustment disorders are highly prevalent in patients with physical diseases and are associated with poorer quality of life, increased morbidity and mortality, as well as higher healthcare costs. Access to mental health care holds strong importance for these patients, although waiting times for outpatient individual psychotherapy in Germany are often long. Attending an intervention while waiting for individual therapy could improve this problem. For this purpose, we developed an eight-session cognitive behavioral group therapy (STEpS) and tested its efficacy in a randomized controlled trial. Seventy-six patients with chronic physical diseases and comorbid depressive or adjustment disorders were randomized to either STEpS or a waiting list control group. The primary outcome was self-reported depression measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D), while the secondary outcomes included global psychological distress and health-related quality of life. Data was assessed at baseline, post-treatment and 2-month follow-up and was analyzed based on intention-to-treat. Compared to the control group, the STEpS group showed significantly less depression (d = 0.37; p = .009) and significantly higher quality of life (mental: d = 0.47; p = .030; physical: d = 0.70; p = .001) at post-treatment. The groups did not differ in global psychological distress. At 2-month follow-up, the STEpS group indicated significantly higher subjective physical health (d = 0.43; p = .046), but did not differ from the control group in the remaining outcomes. STEpS proved effective in improving depression and health-related quality of life in the short term but did not reveal effects on mental outcomes at 2-month follow-up. Nonetheless, the implementation of STEpS as a waiting list intervention prior to individual therapy could help patients to handle long waiting periods in outpatient care. German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00005140 (27 August 2013).

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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Other 8 6%
Researcher 8 6%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 58 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Sports and Recreations 3 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 61 48%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 January 2019.
All research outputs
#14,716,912
of 25,661,882 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#3,219
of 5,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,766
of 334,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#39
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,661,882 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 5,496 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 334,514 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 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.