Cited by 9Health Policy Implementation SciencePsychiatric care and mental health servicesBipolar Disorder and Treatment

Feasibility Evaluation of an Interpersonal and Social Rhythm Therapy Group Delivery Model

Open access
Hoberg, Astrid A., Vickers, Kristin S., Ericksen, Joanne, Bauer, Grant, Kung, Simon, Stone, Randy, Williams, Mark, Moore, Mary Jo +1 more·2013·Archives of Psychiatric Nursing

Abstract

The effectiveness of psychotherapies, such as interpersonal and social rhythm therapy (IPSRT), is supported by randomized controlled trials. These trials provide minimal direction regarding feasibility of psychotherapy delivery models. The study purpose was to identify factors facilitating implementation and sustainability of an IPRST group for patients with bipolar disorder. Qualitative data were assessed by the normalization process model (NPM). The results demonstrate feasibility of implementation with experienced clinicians, program coordination, and leadership support. Sustainability challenges include aftercare groups, space, and clinician time. The NPM provides a useful framework for evaluation of factors influencing the feasibility of psychotherapy delivery models.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apnu.2013.08.002

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoberg, A. A., Vickers, K. S., Ericksen, J., Bauer, G., Kung, S., Stone, R., Williams, M., Moore, M. J., & Frye, M. A.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Hoberg, Astrid A.
Venue
Archives of Psychiatric Nursing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-12
Volume
27
Issue
6
Pages
271-277
ISSN
0883-9417 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2032444563
Cited by
9
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
1.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Psychiatric Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Research Resources (RR-024150, UL1RR024150)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
Keywords
interpersonal and social rhythm therapy, bipolar disorder, group therapy, feasibility, implementation, sustainability, clinician time, program leadership
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Adult, Bipolar Disorder, Combined Modality Therapy, Cooperative Behavior, Major Depressive Disorder, Feasibility Studies, Female, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Leadership, Male, Middle Aged, Minnesota, Models, Psychological, Psychotherapy, Psychotherapy, Group, Interdisciplinary Communication, Tertiary Care Centers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review