↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of the mobile application TCApp combined with face-to-face CBT treatment compared to face-to-face CBT treatment alone for patients with an eating disorder: study protocol of a multi…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
352 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
Cost-effectiveness of the mobile application TCApp combined with face-to-face CBT treatment compared to face-to-face CBT treatment alone for patients with an eating disorder: study protocol of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12888-018-1664-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dimitra Anastasiadou, Francisco Lupiañez-Villanueva, Clara Faulí, Jordina Arcal Cunillera, Eduardo Serrano-Troncoso

Abstract

The clinical utility of the existing apps for people with eating disorders (EDs) is not clear. The TCApp has been specifically developed for people with EDs, is based on the principles of Cognitive Behavioural Treatment (CBT) and allows a bidirectional link between the patient and the therapist. The objectives of the study are, first, to assess the clinical efficacy of a combined intervention for Eating Disorders (EDs) that includes an online intervention through the TCApp plus standard face-to-face CBT in comparison to standard face-to-face CBT alone, and second, to examine the cost-effectiveness of the TCApp and identify potential predicting, moderating and mediating variables that promote or hinder the implementation of the TCApp in ED units in Spain. The study methodology is that of a randomised controlled trial combining qualitative and quantitative methods, with a 6-month follow-up. Approximately 250 patients over 12 years old with a diagnosis of an ED from several ED units in Spain will be randomised to one of two different conditions. Participants, their caregivers, healthcare professionals and technical staff involved in the development and maintenance of the application will be assessed at baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1) and at 6 months follow-up (T2). Primary outcome measures will include ED symptomatology while secondary measures will include general psychopathology and quality of life for patients, quality of life and caregiving experience for family caregivers and adoption-related variables for all participants involved, such as perceived usability, user's satisfaction and technology acceptance. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we will assess quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); total societal cost will be estimated using costs to patients and the health plan, and other related costs. The study will provide an important advance in the treatment of EDs; in the long term, it is expected to improve the quality of patient care and the treatment efficacy and to reduce waiting lists as well as direct and indirect costs associated with the treatment of EDs in Spain. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03197519 ; registration date: June 23, 2017.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 352 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 352 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 13%
Student > Master 47 13%
Student > Bachelor 44 13%
Researcher 27 8%
Unspecified 16 5%
Other 49 14%
Unknown 122 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 76 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 7%
Unspecified 16 5%
Social Sciences 15 4%
Other 56 16%
Unknown 132 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 July 2019.
All research outputs
#12,782,275
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,640
of 4,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,875
of 326,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#95
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 326,328 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.