| Title |
The Dissemination of Computer-Based Psychological Treatment: A Preliminary Analysis of Patient and Clinician Perceptions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 172 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 36 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 27 | 15% |
| Unknown | 25 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 96 | 54% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 6% |
| Unknown | 33 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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
#2,493,628
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
#86
of 670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,893
of 138,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 138,968 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 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