↓ Skip to main content

Self-Help And Recovery guide for Eating Disorders (SHARED): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
Self-Help And Recovery guide for Eating Disorders (SHARED): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0701-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valentina Cardi, Suman Ambwani, Ross Crosby, Pamela Macdonald, Gill Todd, Jinhong Park, Sara Moss, Ulrike Schmidt, Janet Treasure

Abstract

We describe the theoretical rationale and protocol for Self-Help And Recovery guide for Eating Disorders (SHARED), a trial investigating whether a guided self-care intervention (Recovery MANTRA) is a useful addition to treatment as usual for individuals with anorexia nervosa. Recovery MANTRA, a 6-week self-care intervention supplemented by peer mentorship, is a module extension of the Maudsley Model of Treatment for Adults with Anorexia Nervosa and targets the maintenance factors identified by the cognitive-interpersonal model of the illness. Patients accessing outpatient services for anorexia nervosa are randomized to either treatment as usual or treatment as usual plus Recovery MANTRA. Outcome variables include change in body weight at the end of the intervention (primary) and changes in body weight and eating disorder symptoms at immediate and extended follow-ups (6-months and 12-months; secondary). Change is also assessed for the domains identified by the theoretical model, including motivation, hope, confidence to change, positive mood, cognitive flexibility, therapeutic alliance and social adjustment. Feedback from peer mentors is gathered to understand the impact on their own well-being of providing guidance. Results from this exploratory investigation will determine whether a larger clinical trial is justifiable and feasible for this affordable intervention, which has potential for high reach and scalability. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02336841 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 144 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 18%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 10%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 21 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 53 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Neuroscience 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 26 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 October 2017.
All research outputs
#5,633,107
of 19,211,930 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,121
of 4,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,962
of 244,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,211,930 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,971 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 244,007 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them