Cited by 82Digital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Blended vs. face-to-face cognitive behavioural treatment for major depression in specialized mental health care: study protocol of a randomized controlled cost-effectiveness trial

Open access
Kooistra, Lisa C, Wiersma, Jenneke E, Ruwaard, Jeroen, van Oppen, Patricia, Smit, Filip, Lokkerbol, Joran, Cuijpers, Pim, Riper, Heleen·2014·BMC Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Depression is a prevalent disorder, associated with a high disease burden and substantial societal, economic and personal costs. Cognitive behavioural treatment has been shown to provide adequate treatment for depression. By offering this treatment in a blended format, in which online and face-to-face treatment are combined, it might be possible to reduce the number of costly face-to-face sessions required to deliver the treatment protocol. This could improve the cost-effectiveness of treatment, while maintaining clinical effects. This protocol describes the design of a pilot study for the evaluation of the feasibility, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of blended cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with major depressive disorder in specialized outpatient mental health care. METHODS/DESIGN: In a randomized controlled trial design, adult patients with major depressive disorder are allocated to either blended cognitive behavioural treatment or traditional face-to-face cognitive behavioural treatment (treatment as usual). We aim to recruit one hundred and fifty patients. Blended treatment will consist of ten face-to-face and nine online sessions provided alternately on a weekly basis. Traditional cognitive behavioural treatment will consist of twenty weekly sessions. Costs and effects are measured at baseline and after 10, 20 and 30 weeks. Evaluations are directed at cost-effectiveness (with depression severity and diagnostic status as outcomes), and cost-utility (with costs per quality adjusted life year, QALY, as outcome). Costs will encompass health care uptake costs and productivity losses due to absence from work and lower levels of efficiency while at work. Other measures of interest are mastery, working alliance, treatment preference at baseline, depressive cognitions, treatment satisfaction and system usability. DISCUSSION: The results of this pilot study will provide an initial insight into the feasibility and acceptability of blended cognitive behavioural treatment in terms of clinical and economic outcomes (proof of concept) in routine specialized mental health care settings, and an indication as to whether a well-powered clinical trial of blended cognitive behavioural treatment for depression in routine practice would be advisable. This will be determined based on the perspective of various stakeholders including patients, mental health service providers and health insurers. Strengths and limitations of the study are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR4650 . Registered 18 June 2014.

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 · 10.1186/s12888-014-0290-z

Cites

80 of 81 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kooistra, L. C., Wiersma, J. E., Ruwaard, J., van Oppen, P., Smit, F., Lokkerbol, J., Cuijpers, P., & Riper, H.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Trimbos Institute (NL)
  • Leuphana University of Lüneburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Kooistra, Lisa C
Venue
BMC Psychiatry
Published
2014-10-18
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
290-290
ISSN
1471-244X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2101536400
Cited by
82
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2
FWCI
15.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Multilingual Matters (Channel View Publications) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
ZonMw (837001007)
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 › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
major depressive disorder, online therapy, face-to-face therapy, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility analysis, quality-adjusted life years, productivity loss, feasibility and acceptability, treatment satisfaction, therapeutic relationship, depressive cognitions
MeSH terms
Adult, Clinical Protocols, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Pilot Projects, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Single-Blind Method

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