↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of a Positive Technology Application in Patients With Eating Disorders: A Pilot Randomized Control Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Implementation of a Positive Technology Application in Patients With Eating Disorders: A Pilot Randomized Control Trial
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00934
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angel Enrique, Juana Bretón-López, Guadalupe Molinari, Pablo Roca, Ginés Llorca, Verónica Guillén, Fernando Fernández-Aranda, Rosa M. Baños, Cristina Botella

Abstract

Background: Positive psychological interventions (PPIs) have been suggested to produce benefits in patients with eating disorders (ED) by improving well-being, which might act as a buffer of the harmful effects caused by the disorder. Best Possible Self (BPS) is a PPI which consists of writing and envisioning a future where everything has turned out in the best possible way. In this regard, positive technology (PT) can be of considerable benefit as it allows to implement specific PPIs that have already shown efficacy. Objective: This study tested the preliminary efficacy of the BPS exercise implemented through a PT application and carried out for 1 month, in improving positive functioning measures, compared to a control condition, in patients with ED. Follow-up effects were also explored at 1 and 3 months later. Methods: This is a pilot randomized controlled trial, with two experimental conditions. Participants were 54 outpatients, who were receiving ongoing specialized treatment in ED services. 29 participants were randomly allocated to the BPS intervention and 25 to the control exercise. The sample was composed mostly by females and the mean age was 27 years. In the intervention group, participants had to write about their BPS. In the control group participants had to write about their daily activities. The exercise was conducted through the Book of Life, which is a PT application that allows users to add multimedia materials to the written content. Measures of future expectations, affect, dispositional optimism, hope and self-efficacy were assessed at different time frames. Results: Findings showed that all participants improved over time and there were no statistically significant differences between conditions on the specific measures. These effects were not influenced by prior levels of ED severity. Within-group effect sizes indicate a greater benefit for the participants in the BPS condition, compared to the control condition, on nearly all the measures. Conclusion: Results indicated that PT produced modest improvements in patients with EDs that are receiving current treatment for ED. More empirical attention is needed to explore the potential benefits of PPIs as supporting tools in the prevention and treatment of EDs. Trial registration: clinicaltrails.gov Identifier: NCT03003910, retrospectively registered December 27, 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 21 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 29%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Computer Science 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Sports and Recreations 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 27 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 31 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,458,473
of 23,072,295 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,408
of 30,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,876
of 328,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#301
of 674 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,072,295 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 328,219 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 674 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 54% of its contemporaries.