Cited by 220Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

Why is self-help neglected in the treatment of emotional disorders? A meta-analysis

DEN BOER, P. C. A. M., WIERSMA, D., VAN DEN BOSCH, R. J.·2004·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the burden of emotional disorders is very high, mental health care is only available to a minority of patients. The literature suggests that self-help strategies, both bibliotherapy and self-help groups alike, are effective for various, less serious complaints but it is unclear whether available data support a role for self-help in treatment protocols for patients with clinically significant emotional disorders. METHOD: We searched the literature with a focus on 'anxiety' and/or 'depressive disorder'. Standardized assessment of diagnosis or symptoms and randomized controlled trials were inclusion criteria for a meta-analysis. RESULTS: The mean effect size of self-help (mainly bibliotherapy) v. control conditions is 0.84, and 0.76 for follow-up; the effect sizes of self-help v. treatment are -0.03 and -0.07 respectively. A longer treatment period is more effective. CONCLUSIONS: Bibliotherapy for clinically significant emotional disorders is more effective than waiting list or no treatment conditions. The dearth of studies on self-help groups for emotional disorders does not permit an evidence-based conclusion concerning the effects of self-help groups. No difference was found between bibliotherapy and psychiatric treatment of relatively short duration.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s003329170300179x

Cites

14 of 14 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DEN BOER, P. C. A. M., WIERSMA, D., & VAN DEN BOSCH, R. J.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2004-08
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
959-971
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2149709319
Cited by
220
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
FWCI
21.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (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
self-help, bibliotherapy, self-help groups, anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, emotional disorders, treatment effectiveness, waiting list comparison, psychiatric treatment, treatment duration
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Bibliotherapy, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Self-Help Groups, Treatment Outcome

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