Cited by 83Digital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

IF THE EVIDENCE IS SO GOOD – WHY DOESN'T ANYONE USE THEM? A NATIONAL SURVEY OF THE USE OF COMPUTERIZED COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY

Whitfield, Graeme, Williams, Chris·2004·Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy

Abstract

Computerized Self-help (CSH) has recently been the subject of a NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence) review. This increase in interest is also reflected in the increase in advertising for CSH programmes. We report a national survey of a random sample of 500 therapists accredited with the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies, which is the lead organization for CBT in the UK. A total of 329 therapists responded (65.8%). A surprisingly small number of CBT therapists were using CSH (12 or 2.4%) and only 5 or 1% were using it as an alternative to patient-therapist contact. Despite this, over 90% of the responding therapists had not ruled out using CSH in the future, but the majority of these would use it to supplement rather than as an alternative to individual face-to-face therapy. The need to know more about computerized self-help and the need for training in therapy using this modality were seen as the main factors that would have to change to allow the therapists to use CSH. Knowledge of and ability to use computers did not appear to be an important factor as most therapists in this sample used computers on a regular basis. Most therapists were not aware of evidence of the effectiveness of CSH but the minority who did feel able to express views stated that CSH would be less effective than individual face-to-face therapy and result in less client satisfaction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1352465804001031

Cites

7 of 7 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
Whitfield, G., & Williams, C.
Affiliations
University of Glasgow (GB)
Venue
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy
Published
2004-01
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
57-65
ISSN
  • 1352-4658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1833
OpenAlex
W2088317969
Cited by
83
References
7
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy, therapist attitudes, technology adoption, face-to-face therapy, therapist training, evidence-based practice, client satisfaction, NICE guidelines

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