Cited by 70Digital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMental Health Treatment and Access

Attitudes towards the use of computerized cognitive behavior therapy (cCBT) with children and adolescents: A survey among Swedish mental health professionals

Open access
Vigerland, Sarah, Ljótsson, Brjánn, Bergdahl Gustafsson, Fanny, Hagert, Sandra, Thulin, Ulrika, Andersson, Gerhard, Serlachius, Eva·2014·Internet Interventions

Abstract

Research has shown that computerized cognitive behavior therapy (cCBT), including internet-delivered CBT), can be effective. However, less is known about clinicians' attitudes towards this mode of treatment delivery. The aim of this study was to explore the attitudes of clinicians within child- and adolescent psychiatry towards cCBT and to explore if attitudes differed depending on rurality or theoretical orientation. A random sample of Swedish child- and adolescent mental health services was selected for a survey study (N = 15). A total number of 156 surveys were collected. Results showed a generally low knowledge of cCBT. A majority of clinicians were positive to cCBT as a prevention program (73%), and as treatment for mild to moderate problems (75%). More caution was reported with regard to more severe mental health problems. Treatment orientation, but not rurality, had a significant effect on several ratings. Thematic analyses showed concerns regarding for example lack of human support and the restricted usefulness of cCBT regarding age and complexity of symptoms. Perceived advantages were for example increased availability and possibility of an alternative way of communication. This study adds to the limited literature on attitudes towards cCBT. The emerging picture is of a mainly positive attitude and prerequisites for dissemination are promising.

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 · 10.1016/j.invent.2014.06.002

Cites

20 of 20 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?

  • Previous studies focusing on stand-alone IMIs showed advocating attitudes in psychotherapists.

    “Previous studies focusing on stand-alone IMIs showed advocating attitudes in psychotherapists [36–38].”

    From Impact of an acceptance facilitating intervention on psychotherapists' acceptance of blended therapy (2020) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that most surveyed clinicians had positive attitudes toward cCBT for prevention or mild-to-moderate problems. It does not establish advocating attitudes toward stand-alone treatment: the Availability of cCBT section (page unavailable) says 67% did not believe cCBT should be available without professional support. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Therapists consider iCBT for young people to be as effective as face-to-face treatment of mild to moderate problems and believe that it can contribute to more young people receiving care.

    “In a survey of Swedish practitioners' attitudes to iCBT for youths, Vigerland et al. (2014) found that therapists consider iCBT for young people to be as effective as face-to-face treatment of mild to moderate problems and believe that it can contribute to more young people receiving care.”
  • Therapists are concerned about a lack of alliance in iCBT, and that iCBT should not be given to patients with overly complex problems.

    “Results also showed that therapists are concerned about a lack of alliance in iCBT, and that iCBT should not be given to patients with overly complex problems.”
  • The vast majority (86%) in a survey of Swedish practitioners had no experience of working with iCBT.

    “The vast majority (86%) in this study had no experience of working with iCBT (Vigerland et al., 2014).”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vigerland, S., Ljótsson, B., Bergdahl Gustafsson, F., Hagert, S., Thulin, U., Andersson, G., & Serlachius, E.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
Vigerland, Sarah
Venue
Internet Interventions
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-07
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
111-117
ISSN
2214-7829 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2042974047
Cited by
70
References
20
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3
FWCI
6.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Internet Interventions (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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 › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
clinician attitudes, child and adolescent psychiatry, child and adolescent mental health services, rurality, theoretical orientation, treatment orientation, prevention programs, dissemination

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