CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15Digital Mental Health InterventionsHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityMental Health and Patient Involvement

Internet-based trials and the creation of health consumers

Advocat, Jenny, Lindsay, Jo·2010·Social Science & Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.051
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this paper we document the experience of participating in novel randomised controlled trials for panic disorder - where face-to-face and Internet delivery of cognitive behavioural therapy are compared. Our analysis is based on 18 months of observation and in-depth interviews with 10 trial participants and 8 trialists in Victoria, Australia. We argue that the participants are positioned as active health consumers and approach the trial as they would other self-help practices. High levels of individual responsibility are assumed of participants in these trials, which they accept by approaching the trials reflexively and searching for information and strategies they can employ while building their health literacy on panic disorder. Although the researchers set the parameters of the treatment and interaction, increasingly the participants choose the extent to which they will comply with their defined role. For the participants the trial is one of the 'pick and mix' options of available treatment and we suggest it is a compelling example of contemporary health consumption.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.051

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • The variation in adherence and persistence may be due to the participant's discretion in using e-therapy, rather than therapy that is prescribed, as in a drug trial.

    “It is thought that the variation in adherence and persistence may be due to the participant’s discretion in using e-therapy [26], rather than therapy that is prescribed, as in a drug trial [13].”

    From A Systematic Review of the Impact of Adherence on the Effectiveness of e-Therapies (2011) · cites this paper as [26]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Advocat, J., & Lindsay, J.
Affiliations
Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Advocat, Jenny
ORCID
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-02
Volume
70
Issue
3
Pages
485-492
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.051
OpenAlex
W2145264538
Cited by
15
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
health care consumers, panic disorder, cognitive behavioral therapy, health literacy, self-help, personal responsibility, health care utilization
MeSH terms
Humans, Interviews as Topic, Patient Participation, Professional-Patient Relations, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Panic Disorder, Observation, Internet, Consumer Health Information

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