| Title |
A review of cognitive conflicts research: a meta-analytic study of prevalence and relation to symptoms
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ndt.s91861 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adrián Montesano, María Angeles López-González, Luis Angel Saúl, Guillem Feixas |
| Abstract |
Recent research has highlighted the role of implicative dilemmas in a variety of clinical conditions. These dilemmas are a type of cognitive conflict, in which different aspects of the self are countered in such a way that a desired change in a personal dimension (eg, symptom improvement) may be hindered by the need of personal coherence in another dimension. The aim of this study was to summarize, using a meta-analytical approach, the evidence relating to the presence and the level of this conflict, as well as its relationship with well-being, in various clinical samples. A systematic review using multiple electronic databases found that out of 37 articles assessed for eligibility, nine fulfilled the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Random effects model was applied when computing mean effect sizes and testing for heterogeneity level. Statistically significant associations were observed between the clinical status and the presence of dilemmas, as well as level of conflict across several clinical conditions. Likewise, the level of conflict was associated with symptom severity. Results highlighted the clinical relevance and the transdiagnostic nature of implicative dilemmas. |
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 States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 65 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 19% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Unknown | 14 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 42 | 60% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 18 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 December 2015.
All research outputs
#8,261,756
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,087
of 3,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,885
of 395,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#25
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,132 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 395,397 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 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.