↓ Skip to main content

The Dissemination of Computer-Based Psychological Treatment: A Preliminary Analysis of Patient and Clinician Perceptions

Overview of attention for article published in Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
Title
The Dissemination of Computer-Based Psychological Treatment: A Preliminary Analysis of Patient and Clinician Perceptions
Published in
Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research, October 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10488-011-0377-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew M. Carper, R. Kathryn McHugh, David H. Barlow

Abstract

Computerized cognitive behavioral therapy is an efficacious treatment for anxiety and depression with the potential to improve access to evidence-based care. However, its adoption in clinical practice in the US has been low and thus there is a need for identification of barriers to its use. We examined treatment-seeking patient (n = 55) and clinician (n = 26) perceptions of computer-based psychological treatment (CBPT) using Diffusion of Innovations theory as a conceptual framework. Diffusion of Innovations theory emphasizes potential adopter perceptions as being key to understanding adoption decisions, thus making it an ideal framework for evaluating barriers to use. Overall, treatment-seeking patients held slightly negative perceptions of CBPT, while clinicians' perceptions were more neutral. In both groups, perceptions of observability (seeing or hearing about the treatment in use) were rated lowest. Implications for dissemination efforts and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Norway 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 119 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 25%
Researcher 27 22%
Student > Master 20 16%
Unspecified 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 26 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 72 58%
Unspecified 16 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Other 8 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 28 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,575,346
of 13,429,053 outputs
Outputs from Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research
#55
of 421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,739
of 210,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,429,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 210,943 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.