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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cost-effectiveness of i-Sleep, a guided online CBT intervention, for patients with insomnia in general practice: protocol of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12888-016-0783-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tanja van der Zweerde, Jaap Lancee, Pauline Slottje, Judith Bosmans, Eus Van Someren, Charles Reynolds, Pim Cuijpers, Annemieke van Straten |
| Abstract |
Insomnia is a highly prevalent disorder causing clinically significant distress and impairment. Furthermore, insomnia is associated with high societal and individual costs. Although cognitive behavioural treatment for insomnia (CBT-I) is the preferred treatment, it is not used often. Offering CBT-I in an online format may increase access. Many studies have shown that online CBT for insomnia is effective. However, these studies have all been performed in general population samples recruited through media. This protocol article presents the design of a study aimed at establishing feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a guided online intervention (i-Sleep) for patients suffering from insomnia that seek help from their general practitioner as compared to care-as-usual. In a pragmatic randomized controlled trial, adult patients with insomnia disorder recruited through general practices are randomized to a 5-session guided online treatment, which is called "i-Sleep", or to care-as-usual. Patients in the care-as-usual condition will be offered i-Sleep 6 months after inclusion. An ancillary clinician, known as the psychological well-being practitioner who works in the GP practice (PWP; in Dutch: POH-GGZ), will offer online support after every session. Our aim is to recruit one hundred and sixty patients. Questionnaires, a sleep diary and wrist actigraphy will be administered at baseline, post intervention (at 8 weeks), and at 6 months and 12 months follow-up. Effectiveness will be established using insomnia severity as the main outcome. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility (using costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) as outcome) will be conducted from a societal perspective. Secondary measures are: sleep diary, daytime consequences, fatigue, work and social adjustment, anxiety, alcohol use, depression and quality of life. The results of this trial will help establish whether online CBT-I is (cost-) effective and feasible in general practice as compared to care-as-usual. If it is, then quality of care might be increased because implementation of i-Sleep makes it easier to adhere to insomnia guidelines. Strengths and limitations are discussed. Netherlands Trial register NTR 5202 (registered April 17(st) 2015). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 269 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 262 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 43 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 40 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 40 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 45 | 17% |
| Unknown | 62 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 93 | 35% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 12 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 25 | 9% |
| Unknown | 80 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,795,140
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#3,684
of 4,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,022
of 300,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#83
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,698 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 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 300,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.