↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating discussion board engagement in the MoodSwings online self-help program for bipolar disorder: protocol for an observational prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, October 2015
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 (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 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
Evaluating discussion board engagement in the MoodSwings online self-help program for bipolar disorder: protocol for an observational prospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12888-015-0630-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma Gliddon, Sue Lauder, Lesley Berk, Victoria Cosgrove, David Grimm, Seetal Dodd, Trisha Suppes, Michael Berk

Abstract

Online, self-guided programs exist for a wide range of mental health conditions, including bipolar disorder, and discussion boards are often part of these interventions. The impact engagement with these discussion boards has on the psychosocial well-being of users is largely unknown. More specifically we need to clarify the influence of the type and level of engagement on outcomes. The primary aim of this exploratory study is to determine if there is a relationship between different types (active, passive or none) and levels (high, mid and low) of discussion board engagement and improvement in outcome measures from baseline to follow up, with a focus on self-reported social support, stigma, quality of life and levels of depression and mania. The secondary aim of this study is to identify any differences in demographic variables among discussion users. The present study is a sub-study of the MoodSwings 2.0 3-arm randomised controlled trial (discussion board only (arm 1), discussion board plus psychoeducation (arm 2), discussion board, psychoeducation plus cognitive behavioural therapy-based tools (arm 3)). Discussion engagement will be measured via online participant activity monitoring. Assessments include online self-report as well as blinded phone interviews at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow up. The results of this study will help to inform future programs about whether or not discussion boards are a beneficial inclusion in online self-help interventions. It will also help to determine if motivating users to actively engage in online discussion is necessary, and if so, what level of engagement is optimal to produce the most benefit. Future programs may benefit through being able to identify those most likely to poorly engage, based on demographic variables, so motivational strategies can be targeted accordingly. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02118623 registered April 15 2014 and NCT02106078 registered May 16 2013.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 172 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 18%
Researcher 29 16%
Student > Bachelor 23 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Other 30 17%
Unknown 27 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 62 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 10%
Social Sciences 12 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 36 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 07 May 2017.
All research outputs
#2,641,530
of 11,435,336 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#944
of 2,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,354
of 248,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#23
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,435,336 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 248,748 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.