Cited by 624Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Treatment and Access

The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on psychological treatments research in tomorrow's science

Open access
Holmes, Emily A, Ghaderi, Ata, Harmer, Catherine J, Ramchandani, Paul G, Cuijpers, Pim, Morrison, Anthony P, Roiser, Jonathan P, Bockting, Claudi L H +4 more·2018·The Lancet Psychiatry

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/s2215-0366(17)30513-8

Cites

338 of 338 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?

  • Greater precision in quantification of elements delivered, received, and applied could inform improvements to existing treatments.

    “greater precision in quantification of elements delivered, received, and applied could inform improvements to existing treatments (Holmes et al., 2018).”

    From Measuring the active elements of cognitive-behavioral therapies (2023) · cites this paper as Holmes et al., 2018

    The ‘Assessment of mechanisms’ section says that greater precision may come from assessing the mechanisms of individual therapeutic elements, supporting the idea that closer study of elements could improve treatments. The passages do not specifically discuss quantifying which elements are delivered, received, and applied, so that three-part claim is not established by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The threshold of engagement with the digital component that successfully facilitates the "non-digital target behaviour" can demonstrably vary between individuals, supporting a shift toward patient-treatment matching and person-centered care.

    “Notably, the threshold of engagement with the digital component that successfully facilitates the “non-digital target behaviour” can demonstrably vary between individuals [71], supporting a shift toward patient-treatment matching and person-centered care [72]”

    From Experiences of Using Digital Mindfulness-Based Interventions: Rapid Scoping Review and Thematic Synthesis (2023) · cites this paper as [72]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Most studies fail to account for the temporal relationship between the mediator and outcome.

    “Even when establishing statistical mediation, most studies fail to account for the temporal relationship between the mediator and outcome (Holmes et al., 2018).”

    From Mediators of acceptance and mindfulness-based therapies for anxiety and depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Holmes et al., 2018

    The Assessment of mechanisms section says that establishing mediation requires mediator changes to precede and predict outcome changes, and recommends repeated measurement. It does not say that most studies fail to account for this temporal relationship; that prevalence claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Understanding treatment mechanisms is critical to target treatments more efficiently.

    “Understanding treatment mechanisms is critical to target treatments more efficiently: indeed, this goal has been identified as a priority for psychological treatment research in general (Holmes et al., 2018; Kazdin, 2007).”
  • Assessment of negative or iatrogenic effects in psychological therapy is often neglected.

    “Assessment of negative or iatrogenic effects in psychological therapy is often neglected (Barlow, 2010; Holmes et al., 2018).”

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

1 of the 339 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [25]25. Turnbull HW. Correspondence of Isaac Newton, volume 1: 1661-1675. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.
  2. [212]212. Craske MG, Meuret AE, Ritz T, Treanor M, Dour HJ. Treatment for anhedonia: a neuroscience driven approach. Depress Anxiety 2016; 33: 927-38. 222
  3. [253]253. Hawton K, van Heeringen K. Suicide. Lancet 2009; 373: 1372-81. 269
  4. [284]284. Guthrie E, Kapur N, Mackway-Jones K, et al. Randomised controlled trial of brief psychological intervention after deliberate self poisoning. BMJ 2001; 323: 135-38. 300
  5. [314]314. Meade MS, Emch M. Medical geography, 3rd edn. New York, NY: The Guildford Press, 2012. 331

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Holmes, E. A., Ghaderi, A., Harmer, C. J., Ramchandani, P. G., Cuijpers, P., Morrison, A. P., Roiser, J. P., Bockting, C. L. H., O'Connor, R. C., Shafran, R., Moulds, M. L., & Craske, M. G.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Centre for Mental Health (GB)
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Holmes, Emily A
Venue
The Lancet Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
237-286
ISSN
2215-0366 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2789137369
Cited by
624
References
339
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 132 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 36
FWCI
12.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Psychiatry (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NNX15AP57G)
  • Wellcome Trust (101798/Z/13/Z)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH1014531, R34MH101359, R01MH100117, R01MH102274)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
psychological intervention, treatment implementation, treatment response heterogeneity, interdisciplinary collaboration
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Mental Health Services, Psychiatry, Research, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Evidence-Based Medicine

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