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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effectiveness of a tailored implementation programme to improve recognition, diagnosis and treatment of anxiety and depression in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-015-0210-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Henny Sinnema, Maria Cristina Majo, Daniëlle Volker, Adriaan Hoogendoorn, Berend Terluin, Michel Wensing, Anton van Balkom |
| Abstract |
Anxiety and depression are not always diagnosed and treated in primary care as has been recommended. A tailored implementation programme, which addresses key barriers for change by targeted interventions, may help to remedy this. The effectiveness of an individually tailored implementation programme, additional to standardised training and feedback on the recognition and treatment of patients with anxiety or depression in general practice, was examined in a cluster randomised controlled trial. Participants were 46 general practitioners (GPs) from 23 general practices (12 intervention, 11 control) and 444 patients aged 18 years or older (198 intervention, 246 control) who screened positive on the extended Kessler 10. In the control group, GPs received a 1-day training in guidelines for recognition and stepped treatment for anxiety and depression. Ten months after the training session, GPs received feedback on their performance over the preceding 6 months. In the intervention group, GPs received the same training and feedback as those in the control condition; in addition, they were offered support, tailored to perceived local barriers to change. The support was delivered in the format of peer group supervisions and personalised telephone consultations. Data were based on an audit of patient records and patient surveys at baseline and after 3 and 6 months. The tailored implementation programme led to recognition of a higher proportion of patients presenting with anxiety and depression (42% versus 31%; odds ratio (OR) = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.01-2.53), more consultations after recognition (IRR = 1.78; 95% CI: 1.14-2.78) and did not lead to more prescription of antidepressants (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.52-2.19) or referral to specialist mental health services (OR = 1.62; 95% CI: 0.72-3.64). Patients in the intervention group reported better accessibility of care (effect size (ES) = 0.4; p < 0.05) and provision of information and advice (ES = 0.5; p < 0.05). A tailored implementation programme may enhance the recognition and treatment of patients with anxiety or depression. Further development and evaluation of the programme is warranted to determine its cost-effectiveness. Dutch Trial Register identifier NTR1912 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 118 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 13% |
| Unknown | 35 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 23% |
| Psychology | 26 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 37 | 31% |
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 17 March 2015.
All research outputs
#15,128,641
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,482
of 1,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,577
of 265,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#40
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 265,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.