CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 371Digital Mental Health InterventionsPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consensus statement on defining and measuring negative effects of Internet interventions

Open access
Rozental, Alexander, Andersson, Gerhard, Boettcher, Johanna, Ebert, David Daniel, Cuijpers, Pim, Knaevelsrud, Christine, Ljótsson, Brjánn, Kaldo, Viktor, Titov, Nickolai, Carlbring, Per·2014·Internet Interventions
DOI 10.1016/j.invent.2014.02.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Internet interventions have great potential for alleviating emotional distress, promoting mental health, and enhancing well-being. Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated their efficacy for a number of psychiatric conditions, and interventions delivered via the Internet will likely become a common alternative to face-to-face treatment. Meanwhile, research has paid little attention to the negative effects associated with treatment, warranting further investigation of the possibility that some patients might deteriorate or encounter adverse events despite receiving best available care. Evidence from research of face-to-face treatment suggests that negative effects afflict 5–10% of all patients undergoing treatment in terms of deterioration. However, there is currently a lack of consensus on how to define and measure negative effects in psychotherapy research in general, leaving researchers without practical guidelines for monitoring and reporting negative effects in clinical trials. The current paper therefore seeks to provide recommendations that could promote the study of negative effects in Internet interventions with the aim of increasing the knowledge of its occurrence and characteristics. Ten leading experts in the field of Internet interventions were invited to participate and share their perspective on how to explore negative effects, using the Delphi technique to facilitate a dialog and reach an agreement. The authors discuss the importance of conducting research on negative effects in order to further the understanding of its incidence and different features. Suggestions on how to classify and measure negative effects in Internet interventions are proposed, involving methods from both quantitative and qualitative research. Potential mechanisms underlying negative effects are also discussed, differentiating common factors shared with face-to-face treatments from those unique to treatments delivered via the Internet. The authors conclude that negative effects are to be expected and need to be acknowledged to a greater extent, advising researchers to systematically probe for negative effects whenever conducting clinical trials involving Internet interventions, as well as to share their findings in scientific journals.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.invent.2014.02.001

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 82 references

2 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Beyerstein, 2001, Fringe psychotherapies: the public at risk, Sci. Rev. Altern. Med., 5, 70

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–371 of 371

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Rozental, A., Andersson, G., Boettcher, J., Ebert, D. D., Cuijpers, P., Knaevelsrud, C., Ljótsson, B., Kaldo, V., Titov, N., & Carlbring, P.
Affiliations
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Rozental, Alexander
ORCID
Venue
Internet Interventions
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-03
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
12-19
ISSN
2214-7829 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.invent.2014.02.001
OpenAlex
W2105822909
Cited by
371
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 21
FWCI
65.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Internet Interventions (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Multilingual Matters (Channel View Publications) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (FORTE 2013-1107)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
adverse outcomes, adverse events, treatment deterioration, psychotherapy research, clinical trials, adverse event reporting, psychotherapy

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