Cited by 31Digital Mental Health InterventionsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesMental Health Treatment and Access

It's Worth a Try: The Treatment Experiences of Rural and Urban Participants in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Computerized Psychological Treatment for Comorbid Depression and Alcohol/Other Drug Use

Open access
Kay-Lambkin, Frances J., Baker, Amanda L., Kelly, Brian J., Lewin, Terry J.·2012·Journal of Dual Diagnosis

Abstract

Objective: To examine clinician-assisted computerized psychological treatment for depression and alcohol/other drug use comorbidity in rural and urban communities. Methods: Participants in an Australian randomized controlled clinical trial who completed the 3-month post-baseline assessment were examined (n = 163), including those from remote/outer regional (n = 16, 10%) and inner regional (n = 37, 23%) areas and major cities (n = 110, 67%). Participants were using alcohol and/or cannabis at hazardous levels in the month prior to baseline and concurrently reported at least moderate levels of depression. Following provision of the first treatment session (conducted face-to-face for all conditions), participants were randomized to: (1) nine further face-to-face sessions of combination cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational interviewing; (2) nine sessions of combination cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational interviewing delivered via computer, with brief clinician assistance; or (3) nine sessions of supportive counseling. Blind, independent follow-up occurred at 3 months post-baseline. Changes in depression, alcohol, and cannabis use at 3 months post-baseline were the outcomes of interest, with rurality, treatment allocation, and treatment preference fulfilment as independent variables. Self-reported helpfulness and experience of treatment was also explored. Results: Participants completing the 3-month post-baseline assessment (n = 163) were significantly older than those who did not (n = 111) and attended significantly more treatment sessions. The outcomes of interest, including helpfulness of treatment, were not significantly associated with rurality. Of the 92 participants indicating a treatment preference prior to randomization, 13 (14%) nominated a preference for computer-delivered treatment. However, treatment preference did not affect retention, therapeutic alliance, or the benefits reported by urban and rural participants in the trial receiving computerized treatment. Computerized treatment was associated with significantly greater reductions in alcohol use relative to face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy/motivational interviewing (d = 0.621) and supportive counseling (d = 0.904). Conclusions: Computer-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational interviewing (with clinical assistance) is an efficacious treatment for depressive and addictive disorders, with similar levels of acceptability and benefit in rural and urban participants. Computerized psychological treatment might be an acceptable treatment for underserviced populations, with real potential to bridge service gaps and to overcome isolation and perceived stigma among isolated communities. This clinical trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry as trial #ACTRN12610000274077 (http://www.anzctr.org.au/trial_view.aspx?id=335314).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15504263.2012.723315

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Kay-Lambkin and colleagues found that rurality did not affect retention.

    “Kay-Lambkin and colleagues found that rurality did not affect retention [41].”

    From Computerized cognitive behavior therapy for anxiety and depression in rural areas:a systematic review (2015) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Retention section reports no main effect of rurality on sessions attended, supporting the claim in that limited sense. It also reports a significant interaction involving rurality, treatment allocation, and preference fulfilment, so the unqualified statement that rurality did not affect retention overstates the finding. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Acceptability increases significantly once patients have received a demonstration or have undertaken the treatment.

    “Acceptability increases significantly once patients have received a demonstration or have undertaken the treatment [19,41,49,52].”

    From Computerized cognitive behavior therapy for anxiety and depression in rural areas:a systematic review (2015) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Abstract reports that only 13 of 92 participants who expressed a preference before randomization preferred computer-delivered treatment. The Conclusions and ‘The Potential of Computerized Psychological Treatment for Comorbidity’ say the treatment was acceptable to participants, including those who had preferred face-to-face therapy. The paper does not report a significant increase in acceptability after a demonstration or after treatment. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Eight papers regarding six different trials measured rural location as a predictor of outcomes, adherence, or acceptability.

    “Eight papers regarding six different trials measured rural location as a predictor of outcomes, adherence, or acceptability [38-45].”
  • Across the RCTs included in this review, the risk of bias was rated as low for two studies, and moderate for two studies.

    “Across the RCTs included in this review, the risk of bias was rated as low for two studies [38,40], and moderate for two studies [41,47].”
  • Three papers, regarding two trials, reported clinical efficacy data disaggregated by location.

    “Three papers, regarding two trials, reported clinical efficacy data disaggregated by location [40,41,44].”

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. First, M. B., Spitzer, R.L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J.B.W. (2001). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Patient Edition. New York, NY: Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.scid4.org/info/refscid.html
  2. Ritson, B. (2005). Treatments. In A. Paton & R. Touquet (Eds.), ABC of Alcohol, Fourth Edition. Carlton, Australia: Blackwell Publishing. Retrieved from: http://bookshop.blackwell.co.uk/jsp/id/ABC_of_Alcohol/9780727918147

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kay-Lambkin, F. J., Baker, A. L., Kelly, B. J., & Lewin, T. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (AU)
Venue
Journal of Dual Diagnosis
Published
2012-11
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
262-276
ISSN
  • 1550-4263 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-4271
OpenAlex
W2108887642
Cited by
31
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Dual Diagnosis (publishedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (acceptedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
urban-rural differences, depression, alcohol consumption, cannabis use, comorbidities, cognitive behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing, treatment acceptability, treatment preferences, treatment retention, therapeutic relationship, remote communities, service gaps, digital mental health, social isolation

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