↓ Skip to main content

Pragmatic RAndomised controlled trial of a trauma-focused guided self-help Programme versus InDividual trauma-focused cognitive Behavioural therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (RAPID): trial…

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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
229 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
Pragmatic RAndomised controlled trial of a trauma-focused guided self-help Programme versus InDividual trauma-focused cognitive Behavioural therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (RAPID): trial protocol
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12888-018-1665-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire Nollett, Catrin Lewis, Neil Kitchiner, Neil Roberts, Katy Addison, Lucy Brookes-Howell, Sarah Cosgrove, Katherine Cullen, Anke Ehlers, Sarah Heke, Mark Kelson, Karina Lovell, Kim Madden, Kirsten McEwan, Rachel McNamara, Ceri Phillips, Timothy Pickles, Natalie Simon, Jonathan Bisson

Abstract

There is good evidence that trauma-focused therapies for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder are effective. However, they are not always feasible to deliver due a shortage of trained therapists and demands on the patient. An online trauma-focused Guided Self-Help (GSH) programme which could overcome these barriers has shown promise in a pilot study. This study will be the first to evaluate GSH against standard face-to-face therapy to assess its suitability for use in the NHS. The study is a large-scale multi-centre pragmatic randomised controlled non-inferiority trial, with assessors masked to treatment allocation. One hundred and ninety-two participants will be randomly allocated to receive either face-to-face trauma-focused cognitive behaviour therapy (TFCBT) or trauma-focused online guided self-help (GSH). The primary outcome will be the severity of symptoms of PTSD over the previous week as measured by the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM5 (CAPS-5) at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcome measures include PTSD symptoms over the previous month as measured by the CAPS-5 at 52 weeks plus the Impact of Event Scale - revised (IES-R), Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Alcohol Use Disorders Test (AUDIT-O), Multidimensional Scale for Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), short Post-Traumatic Cognitions Inventory (PTCI), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and General Self Efficacy Scale (GSES) measured at 16 and 52 weeks post-randomisation. Changes in health-related quality of life will be measured by the EQ-5D and the level of healthcare resource utilisation for health economic analysis will be determined by an amended version of the Client Socio-Demographic and Service Receipt Inventory European Version. The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) will be collected at 16 weeks post-randomisation to evaluate treatment satisfaction. This study will be the first to compare online GSH with usual face-to-face therapy for PTSD. The strengths are that it will test a rigorously developed intervention in a real world setting to inform NHS commissioning. The potential challenges of delivering such a pragmatic study may include participant recruitment, retention and adherence, therapist retention, and fidelity of intervention delivery. ISRCTN13697710 registered on 20/12/2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 229 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 14%
Student > Master 26 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 7%
Student > Bachelor 16 7%
Other 34 15%
Unknown 79 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 54 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 8%
Neuroscience 7 3%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 22 10%
Unknown 92 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 13 October 2021.
All research outputs
#2,135,283
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#746
of 4,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,584
of 329,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#18
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,719 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 84% 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 329,511 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.