Cited by 190Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

Efficacy, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of self-help interventions for anxiety disorders: systematic review

Open access
Lewis, Catrin, Pearce, Jennifer, Bisson, Jonathan I.·2012·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Self-help interventions for psychiatric disorders represent an increasingly popular alternative to therapist-administered psychological therapies, offering the potential of increased access to cost-effective treatment. Aims: To determine the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of self-help interventions for anxiety disorders. Method: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of self-help interventions for anxiety disorders were identified by searching nine online databases. Studies were grouped according to disorder and meta-analyses were conducted where sufficient data were available. Overall meta-analyses of self-help v.waiting list and therapist-administered treatment were also undertaken. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two researchers according to criteria set out by the Cochrane Collaboration. Results: Thirty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria for the review. Results of the overall meta-analysis comparing self-help with waiting list gave a significant effect size of 0.84 in favour of self-help. Comparison of self-help with therapist-administered treatments revealed a significant difference in favour of the latter with an effect size of 0.34. The addition of guidance and the presentation of multimedia or web-based self-help materials improved treatment outcome. Conclusions: Self-help interventions appear to be an effective way of treating individuals diagnosed with social phobia and panic disorder. Further research is required to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and acceptability of these interventions.

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.110.084756

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • Therapist support does not appear to be essential when using bibliotherapy.

    “When using bibliotherapy, providing information all at one time was as effective as pacing [157], and therapist support does not appear to be essential [75,158].”

    From Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the management of anxiety, posttraumatic stress and obsessive-compulsive disorders (2014) · cites this paper as [75]

    The Limitations section says pure self-help interventions generally performed well, supporting the qualified suggestion that therapist support is not always essential. But it also reports superior results with guidance and cautions that outcomes cannot be assumed equivalent for someone using a self-help book outside a study. The review therefore does not establish the claim specifically for bibliotherapy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The main advantages of bibliotherapy are its ease of use, low cost, low staffing demands, and greater privacy.

    “In addition, the main advantages are its ease of use, low cost, low staffing demands, and greater privacy.26,27”

    From Comparative efficacy and acceptability of bibliotherapy for depression and anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (2018) · cites this paper as [26]

    The introductory passage describes self-help, including books, as requiring little or no therapist input, and the Limitations section describes pure self-help as lower-cost and more accessible. The paper does not establish ease of use or greater privacy as advantages of bibliotherapy. Its Main findings also say the included studies lacked economic evaluations, so lower cost should not be read as demonstrated cost-effectiveness. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Self-help interventions for anxiety disorders showed a greater reduction in anxiety symptoms versus waiting-list conditions (Cohen's d = 0.84).

    “A more recent meta-analysis of self-help interventions for anxiety disorders (Lewis et al., 2012) showed a greater reduction in anxiety symptoms for self-help interventions versus waiting-list conditions (Cohen's d = 0.84).”
  • When self-help interventions were compared with therapist-administered interventions, results revealed a significant difference in treatment efficacy in favour of therapist-guided treatment (d = 0.34).

    “However, when self-help interventions were compared with therapist-administered interventions, results revealed a significant difference in treatment efficacy in favour of therapist-guided treatment ( d = 0.34).”
  • The effect sizes for CBT in the Cochrane meta-analysis were somewhat smaller than those reported in other recent reviews.

    “These effects were somewhat smaller than those reported in other recent reviews [17, 19–22] and also smaller than the large effect sizes for Internet-based ACT (0.80 and 0.87) in the study of Fledderus et al. [40] and for Internet-based CBT for anxiety complaints in older adults (1.43) in the study of Dear et al. [26].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. den Boer PCAM, Weirsma D, van Den Bosch RJ. Why is self-help neglected in the treatment of emotional disorders? Psychol Med 2004; 34: 959-71.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lewis, C., Pearce, J., & Bisson, J. I.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Lewis, Catrin
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2012-01
Volume
200
Issue
1
Pages
15-21
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2166049192
Cited by
189
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
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 › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
self-help intervention, anxiety disorders, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, waiting list comparison, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Mental Health Services, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Self Care, Waiting Lists, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic, Treatment Outcome

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