Cited by 23Digital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Feasibility of a blended group treatment (bGT) for major depression: uncontrolled interventional study in a university setting

Open access
Schuster, Raphael, Fichtenbauer, Isabelle, Sparr, Verena Maria, Berger, Thomas, Laireiter, Anton-Rupert·2018·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objective: This study investigated the feasibility of a novel blended (face-to-face and computer-based) group intervention for the reduction of depressive symptoms in major depression. Design: Patient-centred uncontrolled interventional study. Setting: University setting in a general community sample. A multimodal recruitment strategy (public health centres and public areas) was applied. Participants: Based on independent interviews, 26 participants, diagnosed with major depressive disorder (81% female; 23% comorbidity >1 and 23% comorbidity >2), entered treatment. Intervention: Acceptance and mindfulness based, as well as self-management and resource-oriented psychotherapy principles served as the theoretical basis for the low-threshold intervention. The blended format included face-to-face sessions, complemented with multimedia presentations and a platform featuring videos, online work sheets, an unguided group chat and remote therapist–patient communication. Main outcome measures: The Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale and the 12-item General Health Questionnaire. Results: Large to very large within group effect sizes were found on self-reported depression ( F (2, 46.37) =25.69, p<0.001; d =1.80), general health ( F (2,46.73) =11.47, p<0.001; d =1.32), personal resources ( F (2,43.36) =21.17, p<0.001; d =0.90) and mindfulness ( F (2,46.22) =9.40, p<0.001; d =1.12) after a follow-up period of 3 months. Treatment satisfaction was high, and 69% ranked computer and multimedia use as a therapeutic factor. Furthermore, participants described treatment intensification as important advantage of the blended format. Half of the patients (48%) would have preferred more time for personal exchange. Conclusion: The investigated blended group format seems feasible for the reduction of depressive symptoms in major depression. The development of blended interventions can benefit from assuring that highly structured treatments actually meet patients’ needs. As a next step, the intervention should be tested in comparative trials in routine care. Trial registration number: DRKS00010894; Pre-results.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018412

Cites

74 of 74 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?

  • Some participants in studies of CBT with in-person therapist sessions preferred longer individual therapy sessions (greater than the standard 50-70 minutes).

    “some participants reported preference for both longer individual therapy sessions (greater than the standard 50-70 minutes) [151]”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [151]

    The Results and Discussion report that 48% of participants wanted more time for interaction during in-person group sessions. They do not report a preference for longer individual therapy sessions. The Methods specify that the in-person sessions lasted 90 minutes; 50–70 minutes was the approximate time to complete an online session, not a standard in-person session length. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The length of the program and the length of individual sessions play a role in participants' satisfaction and motivation to continue with the program.

    “The length of the program as well as the length of individual sessions played a role in participants’ satisfaction and their motivation to continue with the program [88,138,147-151].”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [151]

    The Results (Applicability and process aspects; page not provided) report that participants preferred a longer program and that 48% wanted more time for discussion within sessions. The Discussion also treats these preferences as relevant to treatment design. But the paper does not establish that either duration affected satisfaction or motivation to continue; it reports those outcomes separately. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

3 of the 77 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [43]Margraf J, Schneider S, Ehlers A, et al DIPS diagnostisches interview bei psychischen störungen: interviewleitfaden. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2013.
  2. [56]Schmidt J, Lamprecht F, Wittmann WW Zufriedenheit mit der stationären Versorgung. Entwicklung eines Fragebogens und erste Validitätsuntersuchungen. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie 1989; 39: 248– 55. 2762479

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schuster, R., Fichtenbauer, I., Sparr, V. M., Berger, T., & Laireiter, A.-R.
Affiliations
  • University of Salzburg (AT)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Schuster, Raphael
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-03
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
e018412
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2792152565
Cited by
23
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3
FWCI
3.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Phaidra (Universität Wien) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
major depressive disorder, self-management, feasibility, depressive symptoms, treatment satisfaction, low-threshold intervention, multimedia presentations
MeSH terms
Adult, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Feasibility Studies, Female, Health Services Research, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Universities, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Young Adult, Mindfulness

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