↓ Skip to main content

Digital IAPT: the effectiveness

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, March 2018
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
372 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
Digital IAPT: the effectiveness & cost-effectiveness of internet-delivered interventions for depression and anxiety disorders in the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme: study protocol for a randomised control trial
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12888-018-1639-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Derek Richards, Daniel Duffy, Brid Blackburn, Caroline Earley, Angel Enrique, Jorge Palacios, Matthew Franklin, Gabriella Clarke, Sarah Sollesse, Sarah Connell, Ladislav Timulak

Abstract

Depression and anxiety are common mental health disorders worldwide. The UK's Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme is part of the National Health Service (NHS) designed to provide a stepped care approach to treating people with anxiety and depressive disorders. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is widely used, with computerised and internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (cCBT and iCBT, respectively) being a suitable IAPT approved treatment alternative for step 2, low- intensity treatment. iCBT has accumulated a large empirical base for treating depression and anxiety disorders. However, the cost-effectiveness and impact of these interventions in the longer-term is not routinely assessed by IAPT services. The current study aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of internet-delivered interventions for symptoms of depression and anxiety disorders in IAPT. The study is a parallel-groups, randomised controlled trial examining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of iCBT interventions for depression and anxiety disorders, against a waitlist control group. The iCBT treatments are of 8 weeks duration and will be supported by regular post-session feedback by Psychological Wellbeing Practitioners. Assessments will be conducted at baseline, during, and at the end of the 8-week treatment and at 3, 6, 9, and 12-month follow-up. A diagnostic interview will be employed at baseline and 3-month follow-up. Participants in the waitlist control group will complete measures at baseline and week 8, at which point they will receive access to the treatment. All adult users of the Berkshire NHS Trust IAPT Talking Therapies Step 2 services will be approached to participate and measured against set eligibility criteria. Primary outcome measures will assess anxiety and depressive symptoms using the GAD-7 and PHQ-9, respectively. Secondary outcome measures will allow for the evaluation of long-term outcomes, mediators and moderators of outcome, and cost-effectiveness of treatment. Analysis will be conducted on a per protocol and intention-to-treat basis. This study seeks to evaluate the immediate and longer-term impact, as well as the cost effectiveness of internet-delivered interventions for depression and anxiety. This study will contribute to the already established literature on internet-delivered interventions worldwide. The study has the potential to show how iCBT can enhance service provision, and the findings will likely be generalisable to other health services. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN ISRCTN91967124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN91967124 . Web: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN91967124 . Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT03188575. Trial registration date: June 8, 2017 (prospectively registered).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 372 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 60 16%
Researcher 53 14%
Student > Bachelor 38 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 5%
Other 47 13%
Unknown 117 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 116 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 47 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 6%
Social Sciences 8 2%
Computer Science 8 2%
Other 38 10%
Unknown 134 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 17 December 2021.
All research outputs
#2,572,324
of 23,664,476 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#977
of 4,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,886
of 332,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#31
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,664,476 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,912 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 332,572 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 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 68% of its contemporaries.