Cited by 119Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

Exposure-based cognitive–behavioural therapy via the internet and as bibliotherapy for somatic symptom disorder and illness anxiety disorder: randomised controlled trial

Open access
Hedman, Erik, Axelsson, Erland, Andersson, Erik, Lekander, Mats, Ljótsson, Brjánn·2016·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: In DSM-5 two new diagnoses, somatic symptom disorder (SSD) and illness anxiety disorder (IAD), have replaced DSM-IV hypochondriasis. There are no previous treatment studies for these disorders. Cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered as therapist-guided or unguided internet treatment or as unguided bibliotherapy could be used to increase treatment accessibility. Aims: To investigate the effect of CBT delivered as guided internet treatment (ICBT), unguided internet treatment (U-ICBT) and as unguided bibliotherapy. Method: A randomised controlled trial (RCT) where participants (n= 132) with a diagnosis of SSD or IAD were randomised to ICBT, U-ICBT, bibliotherapy or to a control condition on a waiting list (trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01966705). Results: Compared with the control condition, all three treatment groups made large and significant improvements on the primary outcome Health Anxiety Inventory (between-group d at post-treatment was 0.80–1.27). Conclusions: ICBT, U-ICBT and bibliotherapy can be highly effective in the treatment of SSD and IAD. This is the first study showing that these new DSM-5 disorders can be effectively treated.

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.116.181396

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have established the effectiveness of different psychological interventions for health anxiety.

    “Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have established the effectiveness of different psychological interventions [6, 11–17]”

    From Cost Effectiveness of Internet-Delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Patients with Severe Health Anxiety: A Randomised Controlled Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Secondary outcome measures section reports greater reductions in health anxiety across the trial’s three treatment groups than in the control group. But this paper is a randomised trial of one exposure-based CBT model delivered in different ways, not a systematic review or meta-analysis establishing the effectiveness of different psychological interventions. Page numbers were not supplied for the deciding passages. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a series of RCTs, Hedman and colleagues demonstrated efficacy of iCBT for health anxiety, showed it outperforms control groups, and leads to improvements maintained up to 1-year follow-up.

    “In a series of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), Hedman and colleagues have demonstrated the efficacy of internet-delivered CBT (iCBT) for health anxiety, and showed that it outperforms control groups (online forums and internet-delivered behavioural stress management), and leads to improvements in health anxiety that are maintained up to 1-year follow-up ( Hedman et al., 2011 ; Hedman, AxelSSO”

    From Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Versus Psychoeducation Control for Illness Anxiety Disorder and Somatic Symptom Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial (2018) · cites this paper as Hedman et al., 2016

    The Primary outcome measure section reports that iCBT improved health anxiety more than this trial’s control condition, with improvements maintained at 6 months. The treatment-model section says earlier studies found effects lasting at least 1 year. Our copy does not identify online forums or internet-delivered behavioural stress management as the control groups for these findings, so the specific comparator claim is not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous studies have evaluated iCBT delivered either with intensive, weekly therapist guidance or without any support.

    “Finally, previous studies have evaluated iCBT delivered either with intensive, weekly therapist guidance or without any support ( Hedman et al., 2016 )”

    From Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Versus Psychoeducation Control for Illness Anxiety Disorder and Somatic Symptom Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial (2018) · cites this paper as Hedman et al., 2016

    The treatment description says participants in guided ICBT reported to a therapist at least weekly, while the U-ICBT section says no therapist support was provided. It does not establish that the therapist guidance was intensive: the General description of the treatment model reports an average of 63.6 minutes of therapist time per patient across treatment. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Evidence supports the delivery of CBT for health anxiety and IAD online, with large effect sizes when delivered in routine care.

    “Evidence also supports the delivery of CBT for health anxiety and IAD online [26, 58, 77], with large effect sizes when delivered in routine care [78, 79].”
  • This is the first RCT to independently replicate the findings of Hedman and colleagues' studies, and demonstrate that the efficacy of iCBT for health anxiety generalises to an Australian sample with DSM-5 IAD and SSD.

    “This is the first RCT to independently replicate the findings of Hedman and colleagues' studies, and demonstrate that the efficacy of iCBT for health anxiety generalises to an Australian sample with DSM-5 IAD and SSD (replicating Hedman et al., 2016).”

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 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hedman, E., Axelsson, E., Andersson, E., Lekander, M., & Ljótsson, B.
Affiliations
Stockholm University (SE)
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2016-11
Volume
209
Issue
5
Pages
407-413
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2494313366
Cited by
119
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 2
FWCI
22.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Karolinska Institutet
  • Stockholms Läns Landsting
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
somatic symptom disorder, health anxiety, internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, bibliotherapy, exposure therapy, treatment accessibility, DSM-5
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Bibliotherapy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Hypochondriasis, Implosive Therapy, Male, Middle Aged, Psychophysiologic Disorders, Somatoform Disorders, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, 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