↓ Skip to main content

Leveraging routine clinical materials and mobile technology to assess CBT fidelity: the Innovative Methods to Assess Psychotherapy Practices (imAPP) study

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 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
Leveraging routine clinical materials and mobile technology to assess CBT fidelity: the Innovative Methods to Assess Psychotherapy Practices (imAPP) study
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0756-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, Luana Marques, Torrey A. Creed, Cassidy A. Gutner, Robert DeRubeis, Paul G. Barnett, Eric Kuhn, Michael Suvak, Jason Owen, Dawne Vogt, Booil Jo, Sonja Schoenwald, Clara Johnson, Kera Mallard, Matthew Beristianos, Heidi La Bash

Abstract

Identifying scalable strategies for assessing fidelity is a key challenge in implementation science. However, for psychosocial interventions, the existing, reliable ways to test treatment fidelity quality are often labor intensive, and less burdensome strategies may not reflect actual clinical practice. Cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) provide clinicians with a set of effective core elements to help treat a multitude of disorders, which, evidence suggests, need to be delivered with fidelity to maximize potential client impact. The current "gold standard" for rating CBTs is rating recordings of therapy sessions, which is extremely time-consuming and requires a substantial amount of initial training. Although CBTs can vary based on the target disorder, one common element employed in most CBTs is the use of worksheets to identify specific behaviors and thoughts that affect a client's ability to recover. The present study will develop and evaluate an innovative new approach to rate CBT fidelity, by developing a universal CBT scoring system based on worksheets completed in therapy sessions. To develop a scoring system for CBT worksheets, we will compile common CBT elements from a variety of CBT worksheets for a range of psychiatric disorders and create adherence and competence measures. We will collect archival worksheets from past studies to test the scoring system and assess test-retest reliability. To evaluate whether CBT worksheet scoring accurately reflects clinician fidelity, we will recruit clinicians who are engaged in a CBT for depression, anxiety, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder. Clinicians and clients will transmit routine therapy materials produced in session (e.g., worksheets, clinical notes, session recordings) to the study team after each session. We will compare observer-rated fidelity, clinical notes, and fidelity-rated worksheets to identify the most effective and efficient method to assess clinician fidelity. Clients will also be randomly assigned to either complete the CBT worksheets on paper forms or on a mobile application (app) to learn if worksheet format influences clinician and client experience or differs in terms of reflecting fidelity. Scoring fidelity using CBT worksheets may allow clinics to test fidelity in a short and effective manner, enhancing continuous quality improvement in the workplace. Clinicians and clinics can use such data to improve clinician fidelity in real time, leading to improved patient outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03479398 . Retrospectively registered March 20, 2018.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 148 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Student > Master 18 12%
Researcher 12 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 48 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 46 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 54 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 15 August 2021.
All research outputs
#4,310,880
of 25,600,774 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#803
of 1,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,772
of 344,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#23
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,600,774 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 344,492 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.