CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 132Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving the Efficiency of Psychotherapy for Depression: Computer-Assisted Versus Standard CBT

Open access
Thase, Michael E., Wright, Jesse H., Eells, Tracy D., Barrett, Marna S., Wisniewski, Stephen R., Balasubramani, G.K., McCrone, Paul, Brown, Gregory K.·2018·American Journal of Psychiatry
DOI 10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.17010089PMC PMC5848497
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated the efficacy and durability of a therapist-supported method for computer-assisted cognitive-behavioral therapy (CCBT) in comparison to standard cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). METHOD: A total of 154 medication-free patients with major depressive disorder seeking treatment at two university clinics were randomly assigned to either 16 weeks of standard CBT (up to 20 sessions of 50 minutes each) or CCBT using the "Good Days Ahead" program. The amount of therapist time in CCBT was planned to be about one-third that in CBT. Outcomes were assessed by independent raters and self-report at baseline, at weeks 8 and 16, and at posttreatment months 3 and 6. The primary test of efficacy was noninferiority on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 16. RESULTS: Approximately 80% of the participants completed the 16-week protocol (79% in the CBT group and 82% in the CCBT group). CCBT met a priori criteria for noninferiority to conventional CBT at week 16. The groups did not differ significantly on any measure of psychopathology. Remission rates were similar for the two groups (intent-to-treat rates, 41.6% for the CBT group and 42.9% for the CCBT group). Both groups maintained improvements throughout the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings indicate that a method of CCBT that blends Internet-delivered skill-building modules with about 5 hours of therapeutic contact was noninferior to a conventional course of CBT that provided over 8 additional hours of therapist contact. Future studies should focus on dissemination and optimizing therapist support methods to maximize the public health significance of CCBT.

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 · 10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.17010089

Cites

45 of 45 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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [29]First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JW Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Axis I Disorders Research Version, Patient/Non-patient Edition (SCID-I/P w/PSY SCREEN) New York Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute 2015
  2. [37]Wright JH Basco MR Thase ME Learning Cognitive-Behavior Therapy: An Illustrated Guide Arlington, VA American Psychiatric Press, Inc 2006
  3. [41]Weissman AN 1979 The Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale: a validation study Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 1389B–1390B Doctoral dissertation University of Pennsylvania 1979
  4. [43]American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition Text Revision Washington, DC American Psychiatric Association 2000
  5. [45]Little RJA Rubin DB Statistical Analysis with Missing Data Second New York John Wiley & Sons 2002

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 132

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Thase, M. E., Wright, J. H., Eells, T. D., Barrett, M. S., Wisniewski, S. R., Balasubramani, G. K., McCrone, P., & Brown, G. K.
Affiliations
University of Louisville (US)
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Publisher
American Psychiatric Association Publishing
Published
2018-03
Volume
175
Issue
3
Pages
242-250
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
DOI
10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.17010089
PMC
PMC5848497
OpenAlex
W2760933138
Semantic Scholar
0e34af550c7edc4661c24000493d22f2f7d6b340
Cited by
131
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11
FWCI
13.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH082794, R01MH082762)
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 › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy, major depressive disorder, online therapy, treatment efficacy, remission, treatment durability, non-inferiority
MeSH terms
Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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