Cited by 51Digital Mental Health InterventionsObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Self-guided internet–delivered cognitive behavior therapy (ICBT) for obsessive-compulsive symptoms: A randomized controlled trial

Wootton, Bethany M., Karin, Eyal, Titov, Nick, Dear, Blake F.·2019·Journal of Anxiety Disorders

Abstract

Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy (ICBT) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has been demonstrated to be efficacious across multiple clinical trials. However, most of these interventions include clinician support, and many individuals with OCD prefer to manage their own symptoms. Self-guided ICBT overcomes this problem, but to date the efficacy of self-guided interventions has only been studied in uncontrolled trials. The present study aims to examine the efficacy and acceptability of ICBT for OCD symptoms when delivered in a self-guided format using a randomized controlled trial design. In the present study, 190 participants were randomized to either a self-guided ICBT condition or a waitlist control group. 140 participants completed the baseline assessment, initiated treatment, and were included in the analyses. The between-group effect size at post-treatment was large on the self-report version of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (d = 1.05; 95% CI 0.89-1.21). Twenty-seven percent of the ICBT condition met conservative criteria for clinically significant change at post-treatment, which increased to thirty-eight percent at three-month follow-up. Participants rated the program as highly acceptable. The results indicate that self-guided ICBT may be a viable treatment option for some individuals with OCD symptoms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.janxdis.2019.102111

Cites

57 of 57 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

1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wootton, B. M., Karin, E., Titov, N., & Dear, B. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Wootton, Bethany M.
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-08
Volume
66
Pages
102111
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2953853892
Cited by
51
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Government
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, self-guided treatment, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, obsessive-compulsive disorder, treatment acceptability, treatment efficacy, waitlist control, Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Self Care, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Waiting Lists, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Internet, Young Adult, Self Report

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