Cited by 86Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

Use and acceptability of unsupported online computerized cognitive behavioral therapy for depression and associations with clinical outcome

de Graaf, L. Esther, Huibers, Marcus J.H., Riper, Heleen, Gerhards, Sylvia A.H., Arntz, Arnoud·2009·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background In a recent randomized trial, we were unable to confirm the previously reported high effectiveness of CCBT. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to have a closer look at usage and acceptability (i.e. expectancy, credibility, and satisfaction) of the intervention. Methods Depressed participants (N=200) were given login codes for unsupported online CCBT. A track-and-trace system tracked which components were used. We used a 9-month follow-up period. Results Uptake was sufficient, but dropout was high. Many usage indices were positively associated with short-term depressive improvement, whereas only homework was related to long-term improvement. Acceptability was good and expectancy could predict long-term, but not short-term outcome. Limitations Associations between use of CCBT and improvement are merely correlational. Our sample was too depressed in relation to the scope of the intervention. We relied on online self-report measures. Analyses were exploratory in nature. Conclusions Although CCBT might be a feasible and acceptable treatment for depression, means to improve treatment adherence are needed for moderately to severely depressed individuals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2008.12.009

Cites

0 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
de Graaf, L. E., Huibers, M. J. H., Riper, H., Gerhards, S. A. H., & Arntz, A.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Trimbos Institute (NL)
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-08
Volume
116
Issue
3
Pages
227-231
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2164956998
Cited by
86
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 8
FWCI
7.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
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 › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, depression, treatment acceptability, treatment uptake, dropout, homework adherence, treatment expectancy, credibility, user satisfaction, track and trace systems, medication adherence, long-term outcomes
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Prospective Studies, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, 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