Cited by 44Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Navigating the development and dissemination of internet cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) for anxiety disorders in children and young people: A consensus statement with recommendations from the #iCBTLorentz Workshop Group

Open access
Hill, Claire, Creswell, Cathy, Vigerland, Sarah, Nauta, Maaike H., March, Sonja, Donovan, Caroline, Wolters, Lidewij, Spence, Susan H. +16 more·2018·Internet Interventions

Abstract

Initial internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) programs for anxiety disorders in children and young people (CYP) have been developed and evaluated, however these have not yet been widely adopted in routine practice. The lack of guidance and formalized approaches to the development and dissemination of iCBT has arguably contributed to the difficulty in developing iCBT that is scalable and sustainable beyond academic evaluation and that can ultimately be adopted by healthcare providers. This paper presents a consensus statement and recommendations from a workshop of international experts in CYP anxiety and iCBT (#iCBTLorentz Workshop Group) on the development, evaluation, engagement and dissemination of iCBT for anxiety in CYP.

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.2018.02.002

Cites

86 of 86 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?

  • There has been relatively little research examining the implementation of iCBT programs for child and adolescent anxiety in real-world clinical and community contexts, and there are no formalized guidelines for large-scale dissemination.

    “There has been relatively little research examining the implementation of iCBT programs for child and adolescent anxiety in real-world clinical and community contexts (eg, outside university-based research trials); furthermore, there are no formalized guidelines for a large-scale dissemination [14].”

    From Large-scale dissemination of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for youth anxiety: Feasibility and acceptability study (2018) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Introduction (page not available) explicitly identifies a lack of guidance and formalized approaches to disseminating iCBT beyond academic evaluation, supporting the guidelines portion of the claim. It also describes difficulty reaching routine clinical practice, but neither the Introduction nor the Evaluation of iCBT section establishes that relatively little research has examined implementation in real-world clinical and community settings. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Historically, there has been a lack of formalized approaches to the dissemination of iCBT interventions.

    “Historically, there has been a lack of formalized approaches to the dissemination of iCBT interventions [14], yet there are some recent design recommendations that may be appropriate.”

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: 2

  1. Brandt E. Binder T. Sanders E.B.-N. Ways to Engage Telling, Making and Enacting 2012 Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design Routledge, New York 145 181
  2. Wölbling A. Krämer K. Buss C.N. Dribbisch K. LoBue P. Taherivand A. Design Thinking: An Innovative Concept for Developing User-centered Software Software for People 2012 Springer 121 136

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hill, C., Creswell, C., Vigerland, S., Nauta, M. H., March, S., Donovan, C., Wolters, L., Spence, S. H., Martin, J. L., Wozney, L., McLellan, L., Kreuze, L., Gould, K., Jolstedt, M., Nord, M., Hudson, J. L., Utens, E., Ruwaard, J., Albers, C., Khanna, M., Albano, A. M., Serlachius, E., Hrastinski, S., & Kendall, P. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Reading (GB)
  • Region Stockholm (SE)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • University of Southern Queensland (AU)
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Izaak Walton Killam Health Centre (CA)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Temple University (US)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Vigerland, Sarah
Venue
Internet Interventions
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
12
Pages
1-10
ISSN
2214-7829 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2788338087
Cited by
44
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Internet Interventions (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (acceptedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP_2014-04-018)
  • University of Reading
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, childhood anxiety, adolescent anxiety, scalability and sustainability, patient engagement, expert consensus recommendations

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