Cited by 189Digital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Negative effects of internet interventions: a qualitative content analysis of patients' experiences with treatments delivered online

Open access
Rozental, Alexander, Boettcher, Johanna, Andersson, Gerhard, Schmidt, Brad, Carlbring, Per·2015·Cognitive Behaviour Therapy

Abstract

Internet interventions are defined as the delivery of health care-related treatments via an online or a smartphone interface, and have been shown to be a viable alternative to face-to-face treatments. However, not all patients benefit from such treatments, and it is possible that some may experience negative effects. Investigations of face-to-face treatments indicate that deterioration occurs in 5-10% of all patients. The nature and scope of other negative effects of Internet interventions is, however, largely unknown. Hence, the current study explored patients' reported negative experiences while undergoing treatments delivered via the Internet. Data from four large clinical trials (total N = 558) revealed that 9.3% of patients reported some type of negative effects. Qualitative content analysis was used to explore the patients' responses to open-ended questions regarding their negative experiences. Results yielded two broad categories and four subcategories of negative effects: patient-related negative effects (insight and symptom) and treatment-related negative effects (implementation and format). Results emphasize the importance of always considering negative effects in Internet-based interventions, and point to several ways of preventing such experiences, including regular assessment of negative events, increasing the flexibility of treatment schedules and therapist contact, as well as prolonging the treatment duration.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/16506073.2015.1008033

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Rozental, A., Boettcher, J., Andersson, G., Schmidt, B., & Carlbring, P.
Affiliations
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Florida State University (US)
Corresponding author
Rozental, Alexander
Venue
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
Published
2015-02-23
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
223-236
ISSN
  • 1650-6073 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-2316
OpenAlex
W2061701598
Cited by
189
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8
FWCI
27.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DiVA (Stockholm University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
online intervention, online therapy, adverse outcomes, patient experience, treatment deterioration, treatment implementation, treatment format, therapist contact, treatment duration, treatment scheduling
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Patient Satisfaction, Internet, Qualitative Research

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