Cited by 217Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Internet-Based Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Depression: Current Progress and Future Directions

Open access
Webb, Christian A., Rosso, Isabelle M., Rauch, Scott L.·2017·Harvard Review of Psychiatry

Abstract

The World Health Organization estimates that during a given 12-month period, approximately 34 million people suffering from major depressive disorder go untreated in Europe and the Americas alone. Barriers to treatment include geographic distance, lack of mental health insurance, prohibitive cost of treatment, long wait-lists, and perceived stigma. Over the past two decades, Internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (iCBT) programs have proliferated. A growing body of research supports the efficacy of iCBT for depression and other psychiatric conditions, and these programs may help address barriers that hinder access to effective treatment. The present review describes common iCBT programs along with the evidence base supporting their efficacy in reducing symptoms of depression, reviews research on moderators of treatment response, and provides suggestions for future directions in research and care.

Overview

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 · 10.1097/hrp.0000000000000139

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 72 references

1 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 217

Metadata

Authors
Webb, C. A., Rosso, I. M., & Rauch, S. L.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Webb, Christian A.
Venue
Harvard Review of Psychiatry
Published
2017-05
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
114-122
ISSN
  • 1067-3229 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-7309
OpenAlex
W2611823066
Cited by
217
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6
FWCI
1.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Harvard Review of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH096987, K23MH108752)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, depression, major depressive disorder, barriers to treatment, access to mental health care, treatment efficacy, treatment moderators, digital mental health interventions
MeSH terms
Depression, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Internet

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