Cited by 79Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Internet- vs. group-based cognitive behavior therapy for social anxiety disorder: 4-Year follow-up of a randomized trial

Hedman, Erik, El Alaoui, Samir, Lindefors, Nils, Andersson, Erik, Rück, Christian, Ghaderi, Ata, Kaldo, Viktor, Lekander, Mats +2 more·2014·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is common, debilitating and associated with high societal costs. The disorder can be effectively treated with Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy (ICBT), but no previous study has investigated the long-term clinical or health economic effects of ICBT for SAD in comparison to an evidence-based control treatment. The aim of the study was to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ICBT compared to cognitive behavioral group therapy (CBGT) four years post-treatment. We conducted a 4-year follow-up study of participants who had received ICBT or CBGT for SAD within the context of a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. The cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted taking a societal perspective. Participants in both treatment groups made large improvements from baseline to 4-year follow-up on the primary outcome measure (d = 1.34-1.48) and the 95% CI of the mean difference on the primary outcome was well within the non-inferiority margin. ICBT and CBGT were similarly cost-effective and both groups reduced their indirect costs. We conclude that ICBT for SAD yields large sustainable effects and is at least as long-term effective as CBGT. Intervention costs of both treatments are offset by net societal cost reductions in a short time.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2014.05.010

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Hedman, E., El Alaoui, S., Lindefors, N., Andersson, E., Rück, C., Ghaderi, A., Kaldo, V., Lekander, M., Andersson, G., & Ljótsson, B.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Linköping University (SE)
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-08
Volume
59
Pages
20-29
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2088910494
Cited by
79
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 2
FWCI
14.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
social anxiety disorder, internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, group cognitive behavioral therapy, cost-effectiveness, long-term treatment outcomes, non-inferiority, social costs, indirect costs
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Depression, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Patient Compliance, Psychotherapy, Group, Quality of Life, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Health Care Costs, Internet, Young Adult

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