Cited by 154Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

Randomized Effectiveness Trial of an Internet, Pure Self-Help, Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Depressive Symptoms in Young Adults

Open access
Clarke, Greg, Kelleher, Chris, Hornbrook, Matt, DeBar, Lynn, Dickerson, John, Gullion, Christina·2009·Cognitive Behaviour Therapy

Abstract

This study evaluated an Internet-delivered, cognitive behavioral skills training program versus a treatment-as-usual (TAU) control condition targeting depression symptoms in young adults aged 18 to 24 years. Potential participants were mailed a recruitment brochure; if interested, they accessed the study website to complete an online consent and baseline assessment. Intervention participants could access the website at their own pace and at any time. Reminder postcards were mailed periodically to encourage return use of the intervention. The pure self-help intervention was delivered without contact with a live therapist. The primary depression outcome measure was the Patient Health Questionnaire, administered at 0, 5, 10, 16, and 32 weeks after enrollment. A small but significant between-group effect was found from Week 0 to Week 32 for the entire sample (N = 160, d = .20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.50), with a moderate effect among women (n = 128, d .42, 95%C1 = 0.09-0.77). Greater depression reduction was associated with two measures of lower website usage, total minutes, and total number of page hits. Although intervention effects were modest, they were observed against a background of substantial TAU depression pharmacotherapy and psychosocial services. Highly disseminable, low-cost, and self-help interventions such as this have the potential to deliver a significant public health benefit.

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 · 10.1080/16506070802675353

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • Specific daily tasks such as self-monitoring features (e.g. mood or symptom diary) or automated reminders are key elements for monitoring symptom improvement (Clarke et al., 2009; Wozney et al., 2017).

    “Specific daily tasks such as self-monitoring features (e.g. mood or symptom diary) or automated reminders are key elements for monitoring symptom improvement and should therefore be included (Clarke et al., 2009; Wozney et al., 2017).”

    From Involving patients' perspective in the development of an internet- and mobile-based CBT intervention for adolescents with chronic medical conditions: Findings from a qualitative study (2021) · cites this paper as Clarke et al., 2009

    The Methods > Intervention passages describe daily mood ratings, activity tracking, and a feature for viewing depression scores over time, supporting the self-monitoring example. Methods > Assessment describes email reminders for study assessments, not automated intervention reminders for monitoring improvement. The paper does not establish that these features are key elements that should be included in interventions. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Overall 76% of the studies included in the review as a whole, and all but 4 studies included in the meta-analysis, had some risk of bias.

    “Overall 76% of the studies included in the review as a whole, and all but 4 studies (43, 66, 68, 74) included in the meta-analysis had some risk of bias.”

    From What Works and What Doesn’t Work? A Systematic Review of Digital Mental Health Interventions for Depression and Anxiety in Young People (2019) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Results (Subject Flow) describe participants in a randomized trial, and the Discussion addresses limitations of that trial, not risk of bias across studies in a review. Searches for the 76% figure and for risk of bias among studies in a meta-analysis found no passage addressing either claim. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Time spent online was not correlated to outcomes in studies that targeted depression and anxiety, but was correlated to outcomes in studies of infertility related distress and body dissatisfaction.

    “Time spent online was not correlated to outcomes in studies that targeted depression [58] and anxiety [59], but was correlated to outcomes in studies of infertility related distress [60] and body dissatisfaction [61].”
  • The number of pages opened was negatively correlated to outcome in 1 study targeting depression but positively related to outcomes in 2 studies targeting body dissatisfaction.

    “The number of pages opened was negatively correlated to outcome in 1 study targeting depression [58] but positively related to outcomes in 2 studies targeting body dissatisfaction [62,63].”
  • The lack of change in help-seeking in the RCTs may have been due to small sample sizes, an active comparison group, mild mental health problems rather than severe symptoms, or participants having previously sought help or being currently in treatment.

    “The lack of change in these studies may have been due to small sample sizes, an active comparison group [52], mild mental health problems rather than severe symptoms [79], or the fact that participants had previously sought help or were currently in treatment [78].”

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. Fairburn CG Carter JC Garner DM Garfinkel PE Self-help and guided self-help for binge-eating problems Handbook of Treatment for Eating Disorders 1997 494 500 Guilford Press New York 2nd ed.
  2. Fidler F Faulkner C Cumming G Nezu AM Nezu CM Analyzing and presenting outcomes Evidence-based outcome research: A practical guide to conducting randomized controlled trials for psychosocial interventions 2008 315 334 Oxford University Press New York

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clarke, G., Kelleher, C., Hornbrook, M., DeBar, L., Dickerson, J., & Gullion, C.
Affiliations
Kaiser Permanente (US)
Venue
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
Published
2009-05-13
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
222-234
ISSN
  • 1650-6073 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-2316
OpenAlex
W2017824397
Cited by
154
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
10.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R24MH061422)
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
online intervention, cognitive behavioral therapy, self-help, depression, young adults, depressive symptoms, medication adherence, website usage, gender differences, dissemination, low-cost interventions
MeSH terms
Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Self-Help Groups, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Internet, Young Adult

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