Cited by 125Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Effect of Internet vs Face-to-Face Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Health Anxiety: A Randomized Noninferiority Clinical Trial

Open access
Axelsson, Erland, Andersson, Erik, Ljótsson, Brjánn, Björkander, Daniel, Hedman-Lagerlöf, Maria, Hedman-Lagerlöf, Erik·2020·JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract

Importance: Health anxiety is a common and often chronic mental health problem associated with distress, substantial costs, and frequent attendance throughout the health care system. Face-to-face cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is the criterion standard treatment, but access is limited. Objective: To test the hypothesis that internet-delivered CBT, which requires relatively little resources, is noninferior to face-to-face CBT in the treatment of health anxiety. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized noninferiority clinical trial with health economic analysis was based at a primary care clinic and included patients with a principal diagnosis of health anxiety who were self-referred or referred from routine care. Recruitment began in December 10, 2014, and the last treatment ended on July 23, 2017. Follow-up data were collected up to 12 months after treatment. Analysis began October 2017 and ended March 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1) to 12 weeks of internet-delivered CBT or to individual face-to-face CBT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in health anxiety symptoms from baseline to week 12. Analyses were conducted from intention-to-treat and per-protocol (completers only) perspectives, using the noninferiority margin of 2.25 points on the Health Anxiety Inventory, which has a theoretical range of 0 to 54. Results: Overall, 204 patients (mean [SD] age, 39 [12] years; 143 women [70%]) contributed with 2386 data points on the Health Anxiety Inventory over the treatment period. Of 204 patients, 102 (50%) were randomized to internet-delivered CBT, and 102 (50%) were randomized to face-to-face CBT. The 1-sided 95% CI upper limits for the internet-delivered CBT vs face-to-face CBT difference in change were within the noninferiority margin in the intention-to-treat analysis (B = 0.00; upper limit: 1.98; Cohen d = 0.00; upper limit: 0.23) and per-protocol analysis (B = 0.01; upper limit: 2.17; Cohen d = 0.00; upper limit: 0.25). The between-group effect was not moderated by initial symptom level, recruitment path, or patient treatment preference. Therapists spent 10.0 minutes per patient per week in the online treatment vs 45.6 minutes for face-to-face CBT. The net societal cost was lower in the online treatment (treatment period point difference: $3854). There was no significant group difference in the number of adverse events, and no serious adverse event was reported. Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, internet-delivered CBT appeared to be noninferior to face-to-face CBT for health anxiety, while incurring lower net societal costs. The online treatment format has potential to increase access to evidence-based treatment for health anxiety. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02314065.

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 · 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.0940

Cites

45 of 45 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

4 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Axelsson, E., Andersson, E., Ljótsson, B., Björkander, D., Hedman-Lagerlöf, M., & Hedman-Lagerlöf, E.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Gustavsberg Academic Primary Care Clinic, Gustavsberg, Sweden
  • Division of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Published
2020-09-01
Volume
77
Issue
9
Pages
915
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3024887656
Cited by
125
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2018: 1
FWCI
16.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Karolinska Institutet
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
health anxiety, internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, non-inferiority, primary care, Health Anxiety Inventory, treatment access, health care costs, patient preferences, patient satisfaction, patient-reported outcomes
MeSH terms
Internet-Based Intervention, Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Attitude to Health, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Hypochondriasis, Male, Middle Aged, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Primary Health Care, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Cost of Illness

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