Cited by 231Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

Clinician-Assisted Internet-Based Treatment is Effective for Depression: Randomized Controlled Trial

Perini, Sarah, Titov, Nickolai, Andrews, Gavin·2009·Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective The aim of the present study was to determine the efficacy of an Internet-based clinician-assisted computerized cognitive behavioural treatment (CaCCBT) programme for depression. Method Forty-five individuals meeting diagnostic criteria for depression were randomly assigned to the Sadness programme or to a waitlist control group. In the clinician-assisted Sadness programme, participants complete six online lessons, weekly homework assignments, receive weekly email contact from a clinical psychologist, and contribute to a moderated online discussion forum with other participants. An intention-to-treat model was used for data analyses. Results A total of 20 (74%) treatment group participants completed all lessons within the 8 week programme, and post-treatment data were collected from 18/27 treatment group and 17/18 waitlist group participants. Treatment group participants reported significantly reduced symptoms of depression as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory-second edition and the Patient Health Questionnaire-Nine Item. Treatment group participants each received an average of eight email contacts (111 min of therapist time]. Mean within- and between-group effect sizes (Cohen's d) across the two measures of depressive symptoms were 0.98 and 0.75, respectively. Participants found the treatment programme acceptable and satisfactory. Conclusions These results replicate those from the pilot trial reported by Perini et al. and are consistent with literature indi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00048670902873722

Cites

0 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
Perini, S., Titov, N., & Andrews, G.
Affiliations
  • St Vincent's Hospital Sydney (AU)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Titov, Nickolai
Venue
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2009-01-01
Volume
43
Issue
6
Pages
571-578
ISSN
  • 0004-8674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-1614
OpenAlex
W4239050078
Cited by
231
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 19
FWCI
24.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of New South Wales
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
depression, online therapy, online forums, treatment acceptability, common mental disorders, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Professional-Patient Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Patient Satisfaction, Internet, Professional Role, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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