Cited by 29Gastrointestinal motility and disordersDigital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Are self-administered or minimal therapist contact psychotherapies an effective treatment for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS): a systematic review

Open access
Ahl, Alyce, Mikocka-Walus, Antonina, Gordon, Andrea, Andrews, Jane M.·2013·Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Abstract

Objective Irritable bowel syndrome is a highly prevalent gastrointestinal condition that is known to be associated with maladaptive psychological coping and is extremely costly to the health-care system. Psychotherapy has been found to improve both physical and psychological symptoms in IBS. However, it is unknown whether 'no therapist' or 'minimal therapist' contact self-help psychotherapy programs are effective treatments for IBS. Thus, this paper aims to determine whether 'no therapist' or 'minimal therapist' contact self-help psychotherapy programs are effective treatments for IBS.Methods A search of PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Ebscohost research databases was conducted without language or date restriction in July 2012.Results Nine relevant publications were included in the final review, all of which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and included an intervention that was primarily self-administered. It was found that 'no therapist' contact self-help programs are likely to have poor results due to lack of engagement in the program, whilst 'minimal therapist' contact programs appear to produce positive results in terms of symptom relief. Trends towards 'minimal therapist' contact self-help programs having a positive impact on quality of life (QOL) and psychological outcomes were evident.Conclusion 'Minimal therapist' contact psychotherapy programs have the potential to reduce healthcare seeking behaviour and potentially reduce healthcare costs. However, further studies need to be conducted to confirm this effect as there is poor standardisation in the measurements of the available studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2013.04.008

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ahl, A., Mikocka-Walus, A., Gordon, A., & Andrews, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • Royal Adelaide Hospital (AU)
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-08
Volume
75
Issue
2
Pages
113-120
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059273665
Cited by
29
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2
FWCI
0.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
irritable bowel syndrome, psychotherapy effectiveness, coping, symptom relief, quality of life, health care costs, health-seeking behavior
MeSH terms
Humans, Psychotherapy, Self Care, Treatment Outcome, Irritable Bowel Syndrome

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