↓ Skip to main content

The feasibility of implementing recovery, psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for psychosis: comparison study

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
The feasibility of implementing recovery, psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for psychosis: comparison study
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0262-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lian van der Krieke, Victoria Bird, Mary Leamy, Faye Bacon, Rebecca Dunn, Francesca Pesola, Monika Janosik, Clair Le Boutillier, Julie Williams, Mike Slade

Abstract

Clinical guidelines for the treatment of people experiencing psychosis have existed for over a decade, but implementation of recommended interventions is limited. Identifying influences on implementation may help to reduce this translational gap. The Structured Assessment of Feasibility (SAFE) measure is a standardised assessment of implementation blocks and enablers. The aim of this study was to characterise and compare the implementation blocks and enablers for recommended psychosis interventions. SAFE was used to evaluate and compare three groups of interventions recommended in the 2014 NICE psychosis guideline: pharmacological (43 trials testing 5 interventions), psychosocial (65 trials testing 5 interventions), and recovery (19 trials testing 5 interventions). The 127 trial reports rated with SAFE were supplemented by published intervention manuals, research protocols, trial registrations and design papers. Differences in the number of blocks and enablers across the three interventions were tested statistically, and feasibility profiles were generated. There was no difference between psychosocial and recovery interventions in the number of blocks or enablers to implementation. Pharmacological interventions (a) had fewer blocks than both psychosocial interventions (χ (2)(3) = 133.77, p < 0.001) and recovery interventions (χ (2)(3) = 104.67, p < 0.001) and (b) did not differ in number of enablers from recovery interventions (χ (2)(3) = 0.74, p = 0.863) but had fewer enablers than psychosocial interventions (χ (2)(3) = 28.92, p < 0.001). Potential adverse events associated with the intervention tend to be a block for pharmacological interventions, whereas complexity of the intervention was the most consistent block for recovery and psychosocial interventions. Feasibility profiles show that pharmacological interventions are relatively easy to implement but can sometimes involve risks. Psychosocial and recovery interventions are relatively complex but tend to be more flexible and more often manualised. SAFE ratings can contribute to tackling the current implementation challenges in mental health services, by providing a reporting guideline structure for researchers to maximise the potential for implementation and by informing prioritisation decisions by clinical guideline developers and service managers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 5%
Unknown 40 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 21%
Social Sciences 6 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 7 17%

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 05 August 2015.
All research outputs
#11,570,625
of 19,003,315 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,412
of 1,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,491
of 244,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,003,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,630 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 244,863 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 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