Cited by 33Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Self-help books for people with depression: a scoping review

Richardson, Rachel, Richards, David A., Barkham, Michael·2008·Journal of Mental Health

Abstract

Background: There has been little research into self-help books for people with depression, despite the apparent plethora of such titles. As an initial step, we undertook a scoping review of available books.Aim: To identify the number of self-help books for people with depression or mixed anxiety and depression that are available in the UK and to describe their principle characteristics.Methods: We located publicly available self-help books for people with depression or mixed anxiety and depression. We extracted data from the books we located that included descriptive information (including the psychological approach used), readability statistics and popularity measures.Results: We analysed data from 97 books. These publications were diverse in both structure and content. Structure and readability data illustrated that many potential readers may have difficulty using some of them. Popularity proved to be an unreliable way of locating books that would fulfil NICE guidance for a CBT based self-help programme.Conclusions: Many of the available books are complex to read in terms of literacy levels and may present additional problems given the concentration problems of people with depression. There is no relationship between popularity and a book being evidence-based or readable.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09638230802053334

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Self-administered stress management interventions may be more acceptable to college students than to other segments of the population due to the greater digital literacy of college students.

    “Moreover, self-administered stress management interventions may be more acceptable to college students than to other segments of the population due to the greater digital literacy of college students (Fairburn and Patel, 2017; Richardson et al., 2009).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Richardson, R., Richards, D. A., & Barkham, M.
Affiliations
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Richardson, Rachel
Venue
Journal of Mental Health
Published
2008-01
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
543-552
ISSN
  • 0963-8237 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0567
OpenAlex
W1979539006
Cited by
33
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Mental Health (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
self-help books, depression, mixed anxiety-depressive disorder, cognitive behavioral therapy, readability, book popularity, 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