↓ Skip to main content

Self-monitoring and personalized feedback based on the experiencing sampling method as a tool to boost depression treatment: a protocol of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (ZELF-i)

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 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
Self-monitoring and personalized feedback based on the experiencing sampling method as a tool to boost depression treatment: a protocol of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (ZELF-i)
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12888-018-1847-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jojanneke A. Bastiaansen, Maaike Meurs, Renee Stelwagen, Lex Wunderink, Robert A. Schoevers, Marieke Wichers, Albertine J. Oldehinkel

Abstract

Depression is a leading cause of disability worldwide. To reduce the societal burden and improve quality of life for individual patients, treatments for depression need to be optimized. There is a particular need for person-tailored interventions that reinforce self-management of patients. Systematic self-monitoring and personalized feedback through the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) could provide such a person-tailored, empowering intervention that enhances treatment outcomes. The primary aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of self-monitoring and personalized feedback as an add-on tool in the treatment of depressive complaints in a natural setting. The ZELF-i study is a pragmatic multi-site randomized controlled trial (RCT). We aim to recruit 150 individuals with depressive symptoms aged between 18 and 65 years, who have an intake for outpatient basic or specialized treatment at a mental health care organization in the North of the Netherlands. After the intake, participants will be randomly allocated to one of three study arms: two experimental groups engaging in 28 days of systematic self-monitoring (5 times per day) and receiving weekly personalized feedback on positive affect and activities ("Do"-module) or on negative affect and thinking patterns ("Think"-module), and a control group receiving no additional intervention. Self-report inventories of depressive symptoms, psychosocial functioning and feelings of empowerment will be administered before and after the intervention period, and at follow-up measurements at 1, 2, 3 and 6 months. The patient-experienced utility of the intervention will be investigated by a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods. The present study is the first to examine the effects of add-on self-monitoring and personalized feedback on depressive complaints in clinical practice. It is also the first to evaluate two different ESM modules targeted at both of depression's core symptoms. Lastly, it is the first study that uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate the patient-experienced utility of ESM with personalized feedback as an intervention for depression. Results of the present study may improve treatment for depression, if the intervention is found to be effective. Dutch Trial Register, NTR5707 , registered prospectively 1 February 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 184 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 14%
Student > Master 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Researcher 13 7%
Student > Postgraduate 9 5%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 73 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 9%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 78 42%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 September 2018.
All research outputs
#6,839,294
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,332
of 4,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,352
of 335,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#81
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,772 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 335,675 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.