↓ Skip to main content

Study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of group and individual internet-based Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy with treatment as usual in reducing…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
270 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
Study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of group and individual internet-based Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy with treatment as usual in reducing psychological distress in cancer patients: the BeMind study
Published in
BMC Psychology, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40359-015-0084-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

F. R. Compen, E. M. Bisseling, M. L. Van der Lee, E. M. M. Adang, A. R. T. Donders, A. E. M. Speckens

Abstract

Mindfulness-based interventions have shown to reduce psychological distress in cancer patients. The accessibility of mindfulness-based interventions for cancer patients could be further improved by providing mindfulness using an individual internet-based format. The aim of this study is to test the effectiveness of a Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) group intervention for cancer patients in comparison with individual internet-based MBCT and treatment as usual (TAU). A three-armed multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing group-based MBCT to individual internet-based MBCT and TAU in cancer patients who suffer from at least mild psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) ≥ 11). Measurements will be conducted prior to randomization (baseline), post-treatment and at 3 months and 9 months post-treatment. Participants initially allocated to TAU are subsequently randomized to either group- or individual internet-based MBCT and will receive a second baseline measurement after 3 months. Thus, the three-armed comparison will have a time span of approximately 3 months. The two-armed intervention comparison includes a 9-month follow-up and will also consist of participants randomized to the intervention after TAU. Primary outcome will be post-treatment psychological distress (HADS). Secondary outcomes are fear of cancer recurrence (Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory), rumination (Rumination and Reflection Questionnaire), positive mental health (Mental Health Continuum - Short Form), and cost-effectiveness (health-related quality of life (EuroQol -5D and Short Form-12) and health care usage (Trimbos and iMTA questionnaire on Costs associated with Psychiatric illness). Potential predictors: DSM-IV-TR mood/anxiety disorders (SCID-I) and neuroticism (NEO-Five Factor Inventory) will be measured. Mediators of treatment effect: mindfulness skills, (Five-Facets of Mindfulness Questionnaire- Short Form), working alliance (Working Alliance Inventory) and group cohesion (Group Cohesion Questionnaire) will also be measured. This trial will provide valuable information on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of group versus internet-based MBCT versus TAU for distressed cancer patients. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02138513. Registered 6 May 2014.

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 270 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 269 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 14%
Researcher 36 13%
Student > Bachelor 31 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 10%
Other 57 21%
Unknown 34 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 126 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 7%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Computer Science 6 2%
Other 26 10%
Unknown 49 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 16 May 2016.
All research outputs
#4,095,295
of 14,574,779 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychology
#192
of 342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,512
of 235,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,574,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 235,810 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 72% 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