Cited by 118Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for Health Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Cooper, Kate, Gregory, James D., Walker, Ian, Lambe, Sinead, Salkovskis, Paul M.·2017·Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy

Abstract

Background: Health anxiety (HA), or hypochondriasis, is a psychological problem characterized by a preoccupation with the belief that one is physically unwell. A 2007 Cochrane review (Thomson and Page, 2007) found cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) to be an effective intervention for individuals with HA. Similar findings were reported in a recent meta-analysis (Olatunji et al., 2014), which did not employ a systematic search strategy. The current review aimed to investigate the efficacy of CBT for HA, and to update the existing reviews. Method: A systematic search was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance, including randomized controlled trials that compared CBT with a control condition for people with HA. Five hundred and sixty-seven studies were found in the original search, of which 14 were included in the meta-analysis. Results: Meta-analysis was conducted on 21 comparisons and a large effect size for CBT compared with a control condition was found at post therapy d = 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.77–1.25), as well as at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides support for the hypothesis that CBT is an effective intervention for HA when compared with a variety of control conditions, e.g. treatment-as-usual, waiting list, medication, and other psychological therapies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1352465816000527

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cooper, K., Gregory, J. D., Walker, I., Lambe, S., & Salkovskis, P. M.
Affiliations
University of Bath (GB)
Venue
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy
Published
2017-02-23
Volume
45
Issue
2
Pages
110-123
ISSN
  • 1352-4658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1833
OpenAlex
W2541165905
Cited by
118
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy, health anxiety, treatment efficacy, psychological intervention, control conditions, follow-up outcomes
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Humans, Hypochondriasis, Psychotherapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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