Telephone-administered cognitive behavioral therapy for Veterans served by community-based outpatient clinics
Abstract
Objective Multiple trials have found telephone-administered cognitive behavioral therapy (T-CBT) to be effective for the treatment of depression. The aim of this study was to evaluate T-CBT for the treatment of depression among veterans served by community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) outside of major urban areas. Method Eighty-five veterans meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) criteria for major depressive disorder were randomized to receive 16 sessions of T-CBT over 20 weeks or treatment as usual through the CBOC. Veterans were assessed at baseline, 12 weeks, 20 weeks (posttreatment), and 6-month follow-up using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (Hamilton, 1960), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams, 2001), and a standardized psychiatric interview. Results There were no significant Time × Treatment effects (ps > .20). Patients were compliant, with 38 (92.7%) completing at least 12 sessions, and 32 (78.0%) having no missed sessions whatsoever. Ratings of audiotaped sessions showed the therapists to be highly competent. Conclusions This trial yielded negative results for an intervention that has been shown to be effective under other circumstances. We speculate that veterans served within the Veterans Affairs system are more refractory to treatment than other populations, and they may require a more rigorous intervention. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT00223…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A trial of CBT for depression versus usual care in Veterans found no significant effect.
“a randomized controlled trial comparing CBT for depression to treatment as usual in Veterans yielded nonsignificant results (Mohr, Carmody, Erickson, Jin, & Leader, 2011)”
From Cognitive-behavioral therapy for late-life anxiety: Similarities and differences between Veteran and community participants (2015) · cites this paper as Mohr, Carmody, Erickson, Jin, & Leader, 2011
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 25 · Cited by 50
- Authors
- Mohr, D. C., Carmody, T., Erickson, L., Jin, L., & Leader, J.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- San Francisco VA Medical Center (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
- Published
- 2011
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 261-265
- ISSN
- 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2117
- OpenAlex
- W2003082069
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 4.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- US Department of Veterans Affairs (IIR 03-069)
- 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
- major depressive disorder, veterans, community-based outpatient clinics, treatment-resistant depression, medication adherence, therapist competence
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Outpatients, Surveys and Questionnaires, Veterans, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Telemedicine
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
