Cited by 555Digital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Internet-administered cognitive behavior therapy for health problems: a systematic review

Open access
Cuijpers, Pim, van Straten, Annemieke, Andersson, Gerhard·2008·Journal of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Cognitive-behavioral interventions are the most extensively researched form of psychological treatment and are increasingly offered through the Internet. Internet-based interventions may save therapist time, reduce waiting-lists, cut traveling time, and reach populations with health problems who can not easily access other more traditional forms of treatments. We conducted a systematic review of twelve randomized controlled or comparative trials. Studies were identified through systematic searches in major bibliographical databases. Three studies focused on patients suffering from pain, three on headache, and six on other health problems. The effects found for Internet interventions targeting pain were comparable to the effects found for face-to-face treatments, and the same was true for interventions aimed at headache. The other interventions also showed some effects, although effects differed across target conditions. Internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral interventions are a promising addition and complement to existing treatments. The Internet will most likely assume a major role in the future delivery of cognitive-behavioral interventions to patients with health problems.

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 · 10.1007/s10865-007-9144-1

Cites

57 of 57 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?

  • Several barriers impede the provision of psychological treatment to older adults, some of which can be overcome by internet-based interventions, such as mobility limitations or stigma.

    “Several barriers have been identified to impede the provision of psychological treatment to this population, some of which can be overcome by internet-based interventions, such as mobility limitations (Kersting et al., 2009) or stigma (e.g., Cuijpers et al. 2008).”

    From Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of an internet-based CBT intervention for loneliness in older adults: A pilot RCT (2024) · cites this paper as Cuijpers et al. 2008

    The Introduction says internet-based interventions may reduce the stigma of going to a psychologist or therapist, supporting the part of the sentence attributed to Cuijpers et al. The citing sentence applies this barrier to older adults, but the Discussion says none of the reviewed studies specifically targeted older adults. Page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Older individuals are generally under-represented in the samples that provide efficacy data for iCBT programs.

    “Reviews of iCBT for mental illness have indicated that older individuals are generally under-represented in the samples that provide efficacy data for these programs [5], [6].”

    From A Naturalistic Study of the Acceptability and Effectiveness of Internet-Delivered Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Psychiatric Disorders in Older Australians (2013) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Results (‘The target populations’) state that none of the twelve iCBT interventions for health problems targeted older adults, and only three allowed people aged 70 or over to participate. This supports the concern about older adults being under-represented in the evidence base, but the review concerns health problems, not specifically mental illness, and does not quantify older adults’ representation in the samples. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The acceptability, effectiveness and uptake of iCBT treatment for mental disorders has not been established in older populations.

    “However, the acceptability, effectiveness and uptake of iCBT treatment for mental disorders has not been established in older populations [5], [6].”

    From A Naturalistic Study of the Acceptability and Effectiveness of Internet-Delivered Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Psychiatric Disorders in Older Australians (2013) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Results (‘The target populations’; page unavailable) say none of the reviewed interventions targeted older adults, and the Discussion calls for studies with older adults. But this review concerns health problems rather than mental disorders, and it does not specifically establish a gap in acceptability or uptake for older people with mental disorders. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • An increasing number of studies on Internet-based interventions, many based on CBT (iCBT), indicate their efficacy in supporting use of constructive self-management strategies in individuals living with chronic illness.

    “An increasing number of studies on Internet-based interventions, many based on CBT (iCBT), indicate their efficacy in supporting use of constructive self-management strategies in individuals living with chronic illness [12-15].”
  • Efficacious face-to-face interventions adapted for the Internet frequently retain effect sizes rivaling those of traditionally delivered interventions.

    “Such adapted therapies frequently retain effect-sizes rivaling those of the more traditionally delivered interventions [41; 28; 19]”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Higgins, J. P. T. & Green, S. (2005). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5 [updated May 2005]. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2005. Wiley, Chichester.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cuijpers, P., van Straten, A., & Andersson, G.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
Cuijpers, Pim
Venue
Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2007-12-29
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
169-177
ISSN
  • 0160-7715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3521
OpenAlex
W2151159941
Cited by
555
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 37
FWCI
4.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Journal of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
online intervention, cognitive-behavioral intervention, pain, headache, health problems, access to psychological treatment
MeSH terms
Headache, Health Status, Humans, Migraine Disorders, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Internet, Pain Management

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