Cited by 83Art Therapy and Mental HealthPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsLiteracy and Educational Practices

Get into Reading as an intervention for common mental health problems: exploring catalysts for change: Figure 1

Dowrick, Christopher, Billington, Josie, Robinson, Jude, Hamer, Andrew, Williams, Clare·2012·Medical Humanities

Abstract

There is increasing evidence for the efficacy of non-medical strategies to improve mental health and well-being. Get into Reading is a shared reading intervention which has demonstrable acceptability and feasibility. This paper explores potential catalysts for change resulting from Get into Reading. Two weekly reading groups ran for 12 months, in a GP surgery and a mental health drop-in centre, for people with a GP diagnosis of depression and a validated severity measure. Data collection included quantitative measures at the outset and end of the study, digital recording of sessions, observation and reflective diaries. Qualitative data were analysed thematically and critically compared with digital recordings. The evidence suggested a reduction in depressive symptoms for Get into Reading group participants. Three potential catalysts for change were identified: literary form and content, including the balance between prose and poetry; group facilitation, including social awareness and communicative skills; and group processes, including reflective and syntactic mirroring. This study has generated hypotheses about potential change processes of Get into Reading groups. Evidence of clinical efficacy was limited by small sample size, participant attrition and lack of controls. The focus on depression limited the generalisability of findings to other clinical groups or in non-clinical settings. Further research is needed, including assessment of the social and economic impact and substantial trials of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/medhum-2011-010083

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dowrick, C., Billington, J., Robinson, J., Hamer, A., & Williams, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • The Reader (GB)
Corresponding author
Dowrick, Christopher
Venue
Medical Humanities
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-02-18
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
15-20
ISSN
  • 1468-215X (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-4265
OpenAlex
W2105215147
Cited by
83
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3
FWCI
64.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Humanities (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Conservation › Art Therapy and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Education › Literacy and Educational Practices
Keywords
depression, book clubs, group facilitation, literary form, poetry and prose, social awareness, common mental disorders
MeSH terms
Adult, Awareness, Bibliotherapy, Communication, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Female, Group Processes, Humans, Literature, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Reading, Social Behavior, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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