Cited by 256Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Guided and unguided self-help for social anxiety disorder: randomised controlled trial

Open access
Furmark, Tomas, Carlbring, Per, Hedman, Erik, Sonnenstein, Annika, Clevberger, Peder, Bohman, Benjamin, Eriksson, Anneli, Hållén, Agneta +9 more·2009·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Internet-delivered self-help programmes with added therapist guidance have shown efficacy in social anxiety disorder, but unguided self-help has been insufficiently studied. Aims: To evaluate the efficacy of guided and unguided self-help for social anxiety disorder. Method: Participants followed a cognitive–behavioural self-help programme in the form of either pure bibliotherapy or an internet-based treatment with therapist guidance and online group discussions. A subsequent trial was conducted to evaluate treatment specificity. Participants (n = 235) were randomised to one of three conditions in the first trial, or one of four conditions in the second. Results: Pure bibliotherapy and the internet-based treatment were better than waiting list on measures of social anxiety, general anxiety, depression and quality of life. The internet-based therapy had the highest effect sizes, but directly comparable effects were noted for bibliotherapy augmented with online group discussions. Gains were well maintained a year later. Conclusions: Unguided self-help through bibliotherapy can produce enduring improvement for individuals with social anxiety disorder.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.060996

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • Guided iCBT has been found to be effective for numerous specific disorders such as panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, specific phobia, major depression, stress, and somatic health problems such as irritable bowel syndrome.

    “Guided iCBT has been found to be effective for numerous specific disorders such as panic disorder [4,5], generalized anxiety disorder [6,7], social anxiety disorder [8-10], posttraumatic stress disorder [11], specific phobia [12], major depression [3], stress [13], and somatic health problems such as irritable bowel syndrome [14].”
  • Internet-delivered treatments for anxiety disorders have included interventions for panic disorder, SAD, SP, and posttraumatic stress and have established findings that support their potential effectiveness and efficacy.

    “Internet-delivered treatments for anxiety disorders have included interventions for panic disorder, SAD, SP, and posttraumatic stress and they have established findings that support their potential effectiveness and efficacy [43-47].”

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

1 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. First MB, Gibbon M, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I). American Psychiatric Press, 1997.
  2. Mattick RP, Clarke JC. Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behav Res Ther 1998; 36: 455-70.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Furmark, T., Carlbring, P., Hedman, E., Sonnenstein, A., Clevberger, P., Bohman, B., Eriksson, A., Hållén, A., Frykman, M., Holmström, A., Sparthan, E., Tillfors, M., Ihrfelt, E. N., Spak, M., Eriksson, A., Ekselius, L., & Andersson, G.
Affiliations
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Örebro University (SE)
Corresponding author
Furmark, Tomas
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2009-11
Volume
195
Issue
5
Pages
440-447
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2026629696
Cited by
256
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 22
FWCI
20.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Vetenskapsrådet
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 › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
social anxiety disorder, self-help, online therapy, bibliotherapy, online group discussion, therapist guidance, cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment specificity, maintenance of treatment effects, general anxiety, depression, quality of life
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Bibliotherapy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Phobic Disorders, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Self Care, Shyness, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Telemedicine, Internet, Young Adult

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