↓ Skip to main content

A randomized controlled trial of mental health interventions for survivors of systematic violence in Kurdistan, Northern Iraq

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
296 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
A randomized controlled trial of mental health interventions for survivors of systematic violence in Kurdistan, Northern Iraq
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12888-014-0360-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Bolton, Judith K Bass, Goran Abdulla Sabir Zangana, Talar Kamal, Sarah McIvor Murray, Debra Kaysen, Carl W Lejuez, Kristen Lindgren, Sherry Pagoto, Laura K Murray, Stephanie Skavenski Van Wyk, Ahmed Mohammed Amin Ahmed, Nazar M Mohammad Amin, Michael Rosenblum

Abstract

BackgroundExperiencing systematic violence and trauma increases the risk of poor mental health outcomes; few interventions for these types of exposures have been evaluated in low resource contexts. The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to assess the effectiveness of two psychotherapeutic interventions, Behavioral Activation Treatment for Depression (BATD) and Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT), in reducing depression symptoms using a locally adapted and validated version of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist and dysfunction measured with a locally developed scale. Secondary outcomes included posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and traumatic grief symptoms.MethodsTwenty community mental health workers, working in rural health clinics, were randomly assigned to training in one of the two interventions. The community mental health workers conducted baseline assessments, enrolled survivors of systematic violence based on severity of depression symptoms, and randomly assigned them to treatment or waitlist-control. Blinded community mental health workers conducted post-intervention assessments on average five months later.ResultsAdult survivors of systematic violence were screened (N¿=¿732) with 281 enrolled in the trial; 215 randomized to an intervention (114 to BATD; 101 to CPT) and 66 to waitlist-control (33 to BATD; 33 to CPT). Nearly 70% (n¿=¿149) of the intervention participants completed treatment and post-intervention assessments; 53 (80%) waitlist-controls completed post-intervention assessments. Estimated effect sizes for depression and dysfunction were 0.60 and 0.55 respectively, comparing BATD participants to all controls and 0.84 and 0.79 respectively, compared to BATD controls only. Estimated effect sizes for depression and dysfunction were 0.70 and 0.90 respectively comparing CPT participants to all controls and 0.44 and 0.63 respectively compared to CPT controls only. Using a permutation-based hypothesis test that is robust to the model assumptions implicit in regression models, BATD had significant effects on depression (p¿=¿.003) and dysfunction (p¿=¿.007), while CPT had a significant effect on dysfunction only (p¿=¿.004).ConclusionsBoth interventions showed moderate to strong effects on most outcomes. This study demonstrates effectiveness of these interventions in low resource environments by mental health workers with limited prior experience.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.Gov NCT00925262. Registered June 3, 2009.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 296 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 295 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 40 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 13%
Student > Master 38 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 9%
Student > Bachelor 26 9%
Other 49 17%
Unknown 77 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 104 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 12%
Social Sciences 23 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Other 22 7%
Unknown 92 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 29 November 2018.
All research outputs
#2,783,802
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,006
of 4,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,732
of 352,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#17
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,717 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 done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 352,834 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.