Cited by 150Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Assessments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A RCT of a Transdiagnostic Internet-Delivered Treatment for Three Anxiety Disorders: Examination of Support Roles and Disorder-Specific Outcomes

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders share common vulnerabilities and symptoms. Disorder-specific treatment is efficacious, but few access evidence-based care. Administering transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioral therapy via the internet (iCBT) may increase access to evidence-based treatment, with a recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) providing preliminary support for this approach. This study extends those findings and aims to answer three questions: Is a transdiagnostic iCBT program for anxiety disorders efficacious and acceptable? Does it result in change for specific disorders? Can good clinical outcomes be obtained when guidance is provided via a Coach rather than a Clinician? METHOD: RCT (N = 131) comparing three groups: Clinician-supported (CL) vs. Coach-supported (CO) vs. waitlist control (Control). Individuals met DSM-IV criteria for a principal diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social phobia (SP) or panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (Pan/Ag). Treatment consisted of an 8-lesson/10 week iCBT program with weekly contact from a Clinician or Coach, and follow-up at 3-months post-treatment. RESULTS: Outcomes for the pooled treatment groups (CL+CO) were superior to the Control group on measures of anxiety, depression and disability, were associated with medium to large effect sizes (Cohen's d = .76-1.44) (response rate = 89-100%), and were maintained at follow-up. Significant reductions were found on disorder-specific outcomes for each of the target diagnoses, and were associated with large effect sizes. CO participants achieved similar outcomes to CL participants at post-treatment, yet had significantly lower symptom severity scores on general anxiety, panic-disorder, depression and disability at follow-up (d = .45-.46). Seventy-four percent of CO and 76% of CL participants completed the program. Less than 70 minutes of Clinician or Coach time was required per participant during the program. DISCUSSION: This transdiagnostic iCBT course for anxiety appears to be efficacious, associated with significant change for three target disorders, and is efficacious when guided by either a Clinician or Coach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000242022.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0028079

Cites

60 of 60 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 62 references

2 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. R Mattick, 1998, Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety., Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 455

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–150 of 150

Metadata

Authors
Johnston, L., Titov, N., Andrews, G., Spence, J., & Dear, B. F.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Johnston, Luke
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2011-11-23
Volume
6
Issue
11
Pages
e28079
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2006280171
Cited by
150
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 6
FWCI
16.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry
  • Australian Rotary Health
  • University of New South Wales
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
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
transdiagnostic cognitive behavioral therapy, internet-delivered treatment, anxiety disorders, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia, treatment acceptability, treatment efficacy, depression, disability
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Demography, Female, Humans, Male, Patient Compliance, Social Support, Comorbidity, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Case-Control Studies, Treatment Outcome, Internet

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