Cited by 101Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Internet-based self-help versus one-session exposure in the treatment of spider phobia: a randomized controlled trial

Andersson, Gerhard, Waara, Johan, Jonsson, Ulf, Malmaeus, Fredrik, Carlbring, Per, Öst, Lars‐Göran·2009·Cognitive Behaviour Therapy

Abstract

The authors compared guided Internet-delivered self-help with one session of live-exposure treatment in a sample of spider-phobic patients. A total of 30 patients were included following screening on the Internet and a structured clinical interview. The Internet treatment consisted of five weekly text modules, which were presented on a web page, a video in which exposure was modelled, and support provided via Internet. The live-exposure treatment was delivered in a 3-hr session following a brief orientation session. The main outcome measure was the behavioural approach test (BAT), and as secondary measures the authors used questionnaires measuring anxiety symptoms and depression. Results showed that the groups did not differ at posttreatment or follow-up, with the exception of the proportion showing clinically significant change on the BAT. At posttreatment 46.2% of the Internet group and 85.7% in the live-exposure group achieved this change. At follow-up the corresponding figures were 66.7% for the Internet group and 72.7% for the live treatment. Within-group effect sizes for the spider phobia questionnaire were large (d = 1.84 and 2.58 for the Internet and live-exposure groups, respectively, at posttreatment). The authors conclude that guided Internet-delivered exposure treatment is a promising new approach in the treatment of spider phobia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/16506070902931326

Cites

30 of 30 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Andersson, G., Waara, J., Jonsson, U., Malmaeus, F., Carlbring, P., & Öst, L.
Affiliations
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
Corresponding author
Andersson, Gerhard
Venue
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
Published
2009-06
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
114-120
ISSN
  • 1650-6073 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-2316
OpenAlex
W1999882722
Cited by
101
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Vetenskapsrådet
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 › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
spider phobia, guided self-help, anxiety symptoms, depression, phobia treatment
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Animals, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Phobic Disorders, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self-Help Groups, Spiders, 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