Cited by 110Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesWorkplace Health and Well-being

Randomized controlled trial of computerized cognitive behavioural therapy for depressive symptoms: effectiveness and costs of a workplace intervention

Open access
Phillips, R., Schneider, J., Molosankwe, I., Leese, M., Foroushani, P. Sarrami, Grime, P., McCrone, P., Morriss, R. +1 more·2014·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Background: Depression and anxiety are major causes of absence from work and underperformance in the workplace. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can be effective in treating such problems and online versions offer many practical advantages. The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of a computerized CBT intervention (MoodGYM) in a workplace context. Method: The study was a phase III two-arm, parallel randomized controlled trial whose main outcome was total score on the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). Depression, anxiety, psychological functioning, costs and acceptability of the online process were also measured. Most data were collected online for 637 participants at baseline, 359 at 6 weeks marking the end of the intervention and 251 participants at 12 weeks post-baseline. Results: In both experimental and control groups depression scores improved over 6 weeks but attrition was high. There was no evidence for a difference in the average treatment effect of MoodGYM on the WSAS, nor for a difference in any of the secondary outcomes. Conclusions: This study found no evidence that MoodGYM was superior to informational websites in terms of psychological outcomes or service use, although improvement to subthreshold levels of depression was seen in nearly half the patients in both groups.

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 · 10.1017/s0033291713001323

Cites

21 of 21 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?

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 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2006). Computerised Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for Depression and Anxiety: Review of Technology Appraisal 51. NICE: London

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Phillips, R., Schneider, J., Molosankwe, I., Leese, M., Foroushani, P. S., Grime, P., McCrone, P., Morriss, R., & Thornicroft, G.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Schneider, J.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2013-06-24
Volume
44
Issue
4
Pages
741-752
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2141180159
Cited by
110
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0611-10053, MET-08-08-101)
  • British Occupational Health Research Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
MoodGYM, work-related depression, depressive symptoms, online intervention, Work and Social Adjustment Scale, treatment effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, informational websites, attrition, subthreshold depression, psychological functioning, anxiety, service utilization
MeSH terms
Adult, Costs and Cost Analysis, Depression, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Social Adjustment, Stress, Psychological, Reproducibility of Results, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Occupational Health, Treatment Outcome, Workplace, Internet

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