| Title |
Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in patients with depression: current perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ndt.s160761 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Meagan B MacKenzie, Kayleigh A Abbott, Nancy L Kocovski |
| Abstract |
Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) was developed to prevent relapse in individuals with depressive disorders. This widely used intervention has garnered considerable attention and a comprehensive review of current trends is warranted. As such, this review provides an overview of efficacy, mechanisms of action, and concludes with a discussion of dissemination. Results provided strong support for the efficacy of MBCT despite some methodological shortcomings in the reviewed literature. With respect to mechanisms of action, specific elements, such as mindfulness, repetitive negative thinking, self-compassion and affect, and cognitive reactivity have emerged as important mechanisms of change. Finally, despite a lack of widespread MBCT availability outside urban areas, research has shown that self-help variations are promising. Combined with findings that teacher competence may not be a significant predictor of treatment outcome, there are important implications for dissemination. Taken together, this review shows that while MBCT is an effective treatment for depression, continued research in the areas of efficacy, mechanisms of action, and dissemination are recommended. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| India | 1 | 9% |
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| South Africa | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 18% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 189 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 8% |
| Researcher | 14 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 13% |
| Unknown | 66 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 76 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 7% |
| Unknown | 68 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 21 September 2021.
All research outputs
#4,654,210
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#628
of 3,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,505
of 342,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#17
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 342,877 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.