The Role of Homework Engagement, Homework-Related Therapist Behaviors, and Their Association with Depressive Symptoms in Telephone-Based CBT for Depression
Open accessAbstract
Background: Telephone-based cognitive behavioral therapy (tel-CBT) ascribes importance to between-session learning with the support of the therapist. The study describes patient homework engagement (HE) and homework-related therapist behaviors (TBH) over the course of treatment and explores their relation to depressive symptoms during tel-CBT for patients with depression. Methods: Audiotaped sessions (N = 197) from complete therapies of 22 patients (77% female, age: M = 54.1, SD = 18.8) were rated by five trained raters using two self-constructed rating scales measuring the extent of HE and TBH (scored: 0–4). Results: Average scores across sessions were moderate to high in both HE (M = 2.71, SD = 0.74) and TBH (M = 2.1, SD = 0.73). Multilevel mixed models showed a slight decrease in HE and no significant decrease in TBH over the course of treatment. Higher TBH was related to higher HE and higher HE was related to lower symptom severity. Conclusions: Results suggest that HE is a relevant therapeutic process element related to reduced depressive symptoms in tel-CBT and that TBH is positively associated with HE. Future research is needed to determine the causal direction of the association between HE and depressive symptoms and to investigate whether TBH moderates the relationship between HE and depressive symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02667366. Registered on 3 December 2015.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Prior results from research on homework effectiveness in evidence-based psychotherapies suggest that provider-level factors may also contribute to therapy effectiveness.
“Prior results from research on homework effectiveness in evidence-based psychotherapies suggest that these provider-level factors may also contribute to therapy effectiveness [11,23,24].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 31
- Authors
- Haller, E., & Watzke, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Haller, Elisa
- Venue
- Cognitive Therapy and Research
- Published
- 2020-07-22
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 224-235
- ISSN
- 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-2819
- OpenAlex
- W3044749238
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5
- FWCI
- 3.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cognitive Therapy and Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- edoc (University of Basel) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Funders
- Universität Zürich
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- homework engagement, depression, depressive symptoms, therapeutic process, therapist behavior
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