The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 8 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The Science of Internet Interventions
Abstract
Over the past decade, there has been an explosion in research focused on the development and evaluation of health-based treatment and prevention programs delivered via the Internet. A plethora of terms have been used to both categorize the related field (e.g., e-therapy, online treatment, Internet therapy, and interactive health communication), as well as the specific applications (e.g., web-based programs, Internet applications, and web systems). The programs or “Internet interventions,” as they are more apt to be called, typically target behavioral or mental health problems. Prior to these Internet-based programs, computer-based applications to change behavior or treat mental disorders had been created and tested intermittently during the previous two decades as computers were popularized. The breadth of literature on these systems, particularly those that utilize the Internet, has become quite substantive [1]. Outcome trials of Internet interventions have consistently demonstrated greater symptom improvements or changes in behavior compared with controls, and for some problems, outcomes from Internet interventions rival those seen in face-to-face interventions. Hundreds of peer-reviewed papers have now been published in this area, most since the year 2000. There is already quite a number of review articles focused specifically on Internet intervention research. Some of these reviews are now older, highlighting early, but important findings in the field [2]; some are systematic and fairly detailed [3]; and some are large scale, comprehensive reviews [1, 4]. There are many reviews focused on specific areas, such as pediatrics [5]; physical activity [6]; obesity [7]; alcohol and tobacco use [8, 9]; cardiac disease [10]; depression and anxiety [11]; and traumatic stress [12]. There are also a surprising number of published meta-analyses for such a young field [13–15]. The conclusion drawn from most reviews and meta-analyses is that Internet interventions yield positive treatment outcomes, symptom reduction, and improved quality of life.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This editorial introduces a special series arguing that Internet interventions have established efficacy but lack a sufficient scientific foundation. It summarizes five contributions on definitions, a behavior-change model, methodology, cost-effectiveness, and commentary.
Key findings
- Outcome trials of Internet interventions have consistently demonstrated greater symptom improvements or behavior changes compared with controls, and for some problems outcomes rival face-to-face interventions; hundreds of peer-reviewed papers have been published, most since 2000.
- Despite many reviews and meta-analyses concluding positive treatment outcomes, symptom reduction, and improved quality of life, there is “remarkably little literature on the underlying science of the field.”
- Barak et al. organize programs into four primary categories: web-based interventions, online counseling and therapy, Internet-operated therapeutic software, and other online activities; Ritterband et al. propose a nine-step behavior-change model.
- Danaher and Seeley review methodological approaches and call for more innovative designs; Tate et al. review cost and cost-effectiveness analyses and note that few studies provide cost data; Glasgow’s commentary highlights scalability, reach, and health disparity.
Methods
- Design: editorial/introduction to a special series in *Annals of Behavioral Medicine*; not an empirical study.
- Data or sample: narrative overview of five special-series articles—Barak et al., Ritterband et al., Danaher and Seeley, Tate et al., and a commentary by Glasgow.
- Main analysis: descriptive synthesis of each article’s focus and implications; no primary data collection or statistical analysis is reported.
Limitations
- Stated: the Ritterband model is a simplification that will evolve, with components possibly added or removed and further elements requiring testing; cost savings are often assumed based on fully automated systems, while few studies provide cost data; requiring outcomes similar to face-to-face care may be unnecessarily stringent.
- Evident: as an editorial, it presents no original empirical data, systematic review methods, or quantitative synthesis, so its conclusions rely on cited literature and the special-series papers.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
15 Own interpretation · 4 Not checked yet · 3 No basis given
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“for some problems, outcomes from Internet interventions rival those seen in face-to-face interventions.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Marks IM, Cavanagh K, Gega L. Hands-on help: computer-aided psychotherapy. Hove, England, and New York: Psychology; 2007. source
- Not checked yetcites [4] Murray E, Burns J, See TS, Lai R, Nazareth I (2005) Interactive health communication applications for people with chronic disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (4):CD004274 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Outcome trials of Internet interventions have consistently demonstrated greater symptom improvements or changes in behavior compared with controls,”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Marks IM, Cavanagh K, Gega L. Hands-on help: computer-aided psychotherapy. Hove, England, and New York: Psychology; 2007. source
- Not checked yetcites [4] Murray E, Burns J, See TS, Lai R, Nazareth I (2005) Interactive health communication applications for people with chronic disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (4):CD004274 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Internet interventions can provide an option to those who cannot or choose not to seek face-to-face treatment.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, while cost is an often cited reason for examining Internet interventions, few studies provide any cost data [3].”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Special Series Articles
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Griffiths F, Lindenmeyer A, Powell J, Lowe P, Thorogood M. Why are health care interventions delivered over the Internet? A systematic review of the published literature. J Med Internet Res. 2006; 8: e11. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 3
- Probably not a substantial claim. 16
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The conclusion drawn from most reviews and metaanalyses is that Internet interventions yield positive treatment outcomes, symptom reduction, and improved quality of life.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Wantland D, Portillo C, Holzemer W, Laughter R, McGhee E. The effectiveness of web-based vs. non-web-based interventions: a meta-analysis of behavioral change outcomes. J Med Internet Res. 2004; 6: e40. source
- Not checked yetcites [14] Spek V, Cuijpers P, Nyklicek I, Riper H, Keyzer J, Pop V. Internet-based cogntive behaviour therapy for symptoms of depression and anxiety: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2007; 37: 319-328. source
- Not checked yetcites [15] Barak A, Hen L, Boniel-Nissim M, Shapira N. A comprehensive review and a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of Internet-based psychotherapeutic interventions. J Tech Hum Serv. 2008; 26: 109-160. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Grounding these interventions in a theoretical framework will further establish Internet interventions as viable, scientifically-based prevention, and treatment programs.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Special Series Articles
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Little attention has been paid in the literature to the theoretical underpinnings of Internet interventions.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They may also enhance the ability of health care providers to better utilize their time and possibly reallocate valuable face-toface time to those who require a more intensive intervention by allowing the clinical needs of some patients to be addressed through the use of Internet interventions.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many of these treatments can be used as additive or adjunctive components of traditional treatment, supplementing material, skills, or time that clinicians may not have.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Conclusion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there are many forms of treatment offered via the Internet, including programs that incorporate substantial human involvement.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Special Series Articles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, the potential for widescale dissemination is significant.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Individuals, who would otherwise be unable or unwilling to receive care, might have access to Internet prevention or treatment options, particularly those in rural areas.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They also offer many advantages from an intervention delivery perspective including the ability to provide treatments in a standardized manner with fidelity across a variety of settings.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These interventions lower many of the barriers that patients face when accessing traditional forms of care, including the difficulties in finding a skilled clinician for a specific disorder, inconvenience of scheduling face-to-face appointments, missing work/school, travel to and from a clinician's office, expense, and many others.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While it may seem obvious that Internet interventions cost less than traditional services, this assumption is typically based on comparisons to fully automated systems, where ongoing maintenance costs are considered to be minimal per user.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Special Series Articles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is an unprecedented opportunity for comprehensive evidencebased treatments to be more widely disseminated via the Internet, reaching patients at doctors' offices, school, work, and home.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Conclusion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Internet interventions, clearly, promise an efficacious, scalable, and cost-effective prevention and treatment option, with significant potential for public health impact.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Conclusion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Internet interventions have the potential to reach large numbers of people all over the world with enormous cost savings.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Internet interventions cost less than traditional services.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They can be used as part of a stepped-care model.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, without a scientific underpinning, the field may flounder.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: There is remarkably little literature on the underlying science of Internet interventions.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some of the main advantages to developing Internet interventions relate to scalability and expense.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Special Series Articles
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without unifying definitions, it is difficult to ensure that reviews and meta-analyses include the relevant and appropriate studies, potentially impacting the generalizations that are drawn from these reviews.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Special Series Articles
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If designed and used correctly, Internet interventions can become a powerful tool in helping reduce health disparities, particularly among the geographically isolated.”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Conclusion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the outcome literature has helped establish Internet interventions as a viable and important prevention and treatment option”
§ The Science of Internet Interventions > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
There is remarkably little literature on the underlying science of Internet interventions.
“However, despite considerable attention devoted to Internet intervention research, there is remarkably little literature on the underlying science of the field.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Little attention has been paid in the literature to the theoretical underpinnings of Internet interventions.
“In addition to definitions, little attention has been paid in the literature to the theoretical underpinnings of Internet interventions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Behavior change and symptom improvement are typically assumed to be achieved through the same means as more traditional intervention approaches such as face-to-face treatment.
“Behavior change and symptom improvement are typically assumed to be achieved through the same means as more traditional intervention approaches such as face-to-face treatment.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The feasibility of Internet interventions is now well-established.
“The feasibility of Internet interventions is now wellestablished.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Internet interventions have the potential to reach large numbers of people all over the world with enormous cost savings.
“Internet interventions have the potential to reach large numbers of people all over the world with enormous cost savings.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Internet interventions cost less than traditional services.
“While it may seem obvious that Internet interventions cost less than traditional services, this assumption is typically based on comparisons to fully automated systems, where ongoing maintenance costs are considered to be minimal per user.”
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?
In the citing paper
“As the corpus of research studies grows, there have been calls to develop a more scientific approach to the design and evaluation of Web-based interventions: a methodology that includes the analysis of engagement.”
From Analyzing Engagement in a Web-Based Intervention Platform Through Visualizing Log-Data (2014) · cites this paper as [9]
In the citing paper
“However, one increasingly used approach to overcoming these obstacles has been to adapt empirically supported treatments into online delivery platforms that make them more accessible, particularly to those living in remote areas,29,43,47 with outcomes often rivaling those for in-clinic treatment.10,14”
From Randomized Controlled Trial of Online Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Fibromyalgia (2018) · cites this paper as [43]
Citations
Cites
Internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy for symptoms of depression and anxiety: A meta-analysis
SPEK, V., CUIJPERS, P., NYKLÍČEK, I., RIPER, H., KEYZER, J., & POP, V. (2007) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291706008944 · Cited by 1,586
Barak, A., Hen, L., Boniel-Nissim, M., & Shapira, N. (2008) · Journal of Technology in Human Services · doi:10.1080/15228830802094429 · Cited by 1,283
Wantland, D. J., Portillo, C. J., Holzemer, W. L., Slaughter, R., & McGhee, E. M. (2004) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.6.4.e40 · Cited by 966 · cited 1×
“There are also a surprising number of published meta-analyses for such a young field [13–15].”
Griffiths, F., Lindenmeyer, A., Powell, J., Lowe, P., & Thorogood, M. (2006) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.8.2.e10 · Cited by 820 · cited 2×
“Some of these reviews are now older, highlighting early, but important findings in the field [2]; some are systematic and fairly detailed [3]; and some are large scale, comprehensive reviews [1, 4].”
BackgroundDefining Internet-Supported Therapeutic Interventions
Barak, A., Klein, B., & Proudfoot, J. G. (2009) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12160-009-9130-7 · Cited by 731 · cited 1×
“The article by Barak, Proudfoot, and Klein [16] attempts to clearly define and describe the variety of Internet-based program types developed and examined in the field.”
BackgroundInteractive Health Communication Applications for people with chronic disease
Murray, E., Burns, J., See Tai, S., Lai, R., & Nazareth, I. (2005) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004274.pub4 · Cited by 722 · cited 1×
“Some of these reviews are now older, highlighting early, but important findings in the field [2]; some are systematic and fairly detailed [3]; and some are large scale, comprehensive reviews [1, 4].”
BackgroundA Behavior Change Model for Internet Interventions
Ritterband, L. M., Thorndike, F. P., Cox, D. J., Kovatchev, B. P., & Gonder-Frederick, L. A. (2009) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12160-009-9133-4 · Cited by 591 · cited 1×
“The article by Ritterband and colleagues [17] proposes one such model of behavior change through the use of Internet interventions.”
BackgroundSelf-citationInternet-based physical activity interventions: a systematic review of the literature.
van den Berg, M. H., Schoones, J. W., & Vliet Vlieland, T. P. (2007) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.9.3.e26 · Cited by 377
Internet interventions: In review, in use, and into the future.
Ritterband, L. M., Gonder-Frederick, L. A., Cox, D. J., Clifton, A. D., West, R. W., & Borowitz, S. M. (2003) · Professional Psychology: Research and Practice · doi:10.1037/0735-7028.34.5.527 · Cited by 352
Self-citationInternet-based mental health programs: A powerful tool in the rural medical kit
Griffiths, K. M., & Christensen, H. (2007) · Australian Journal of Rural Health · doi:10.1111/j.1440-1584.2007.00859.x · Cited by 270 · cited 1×
“There are many reviews focused on specific areas, such as pediatrics [5]; physical activity [6]; obesity [7]; alcohol and tobacco use [8, 9]; cardiac disease [10]; depression and anxiety [11]; and traumatic stress [12].”
Background
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Webb, T. L., Joseph, J., Yardley, L., & Michie, S. (2010) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1376 · Cited by 2,517
Systematic Literature Review on the Spread of Health-related Misinformation on Social Media
Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A., & Stuckler, D. (2019) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552 · Cited by 1,806
“…now pay considerable attention to the potential of the internet as a tool to diffuse health-related information (Chew and Eysenbach, 2010; Ritterband and Tate, 2009; Murray et al., 2009; Scanfeld et al., 2010; Signorini et al., 2011), employing smart phones and other mobile technologies…”
BackgroundRebooting psychotherapy research and practice to reduce the burden of mental illness
Kazdin, A. E., & Blase, S. L. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610393527 · Cited by 1,254
Mohr, D. C., Burns, M. N., Schueller, S. M., Clarke, G., & Klinkman, M. (2013) · General Hospital Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.03.008 · Cited by 693
“lized and programmed for Web delivery of skills training, other tutorials and promotion of real-life generalization of new skills [13].”
Online Prevention Aimed at Lifestyle Behaviors: A Systematic Review of Reviews
Kohl, L. F., Crutzen, R., & de Vries, N. K. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2665 · Cited by 388
Metadata
- Authors
- Ritterband, L. M., & Tate, D. F.
- Affiliations
- University of Virginia Health System (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ritterband, Lee M.
- Venue
- Annals of Behavioral Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-08
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-3
- ISSN
- 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
- 0883-6612
- 1532-4796
- OpenAlex
- W1991503422
- Semantic Scholar
- 9c822d1910a9a80b9b164644c6fd5948c493a6af
- Cited by
- 111
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 9.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annals of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Keywords
- online intervention, e-therapy, online therapy, behavioral health, psychotherapy, prevention programs, treatment outcomes, meta-analysis
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Psychotherapy, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Internet, Evidence-Based Practice
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
