Cited by 79Digital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Comparative Effectiveness of Cognitive Therapies Delivered Face-to-Face or over the Telephone: An Observational Study Using Propensity Methods

Open access
Hammond, Geoffrey C., Croudace, Tim J., Radhakrishnan, Muralikrishnan, Lafortune, Louise, Watson, Alison, McMillan-Shields, Fiona, Jones, Peter B.·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of face-to-face (FTF) with over-the-telephone (OTT) delivery of low intensity cognitive behavioural therapy. DESIGN: Observational study following SROBE guidelines. Selection effects were controlled using propensity scores. Non-inferiority comparisons assessed effectiveness. SETTING: IAPT (improving access to psychological therapies) services in the East of England. PARTICIPANTS: 39,227 adults referred to IAPT services. Propensity score strata included 4,106 individuals; 147 pairs participated in 1:1 matching. INTERVENTION: Two or more sessions of computerised cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported outcomes: Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) for depression; Generalised Anxiety Disorder questionnaire (GAD-7); Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). Differences between groups were summarised as standardised effect sizes (ES), adjusted mean differences and minimally important difference for PHQ-9. Cost per session for OTT was compared with FTF. RESULTS: Analysis of covariance controlling for number of assessments, provider site, and baseline PHQ-9, GAD-7 and WSAS indicated statistically significantly greater reductions in scores for OTT treatment with moderate (PHQ-9: ES: 0.14; GAD-7: ES: 0.10) or small (WSAS: ES: 0.03) effect sizes. Non-inferiority in favour of OTT treatment for symptom severity persisted as small to moderate effects for all but individuals with the highest symptom severity. In the most stringent comparison, the one-to-one propensity matching, adjusted mean differences in treatment outcomes indicated non-inferiority between OTT versus FTF treatments for PHQ-9 and GAD-7, whereas the evidence was moderate for WSAS. The per-session cost for OTT was 36.2% lower than FTF. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effectiveness of low intensity CBT-based interventions delivered OTT was not inferior to those delivered FTF except for people with more severe illness where FTF was superior. This provides evidence for better targeting of therapy, efficiencies for patients, cost savings for services and greater access to psychological therapies for people with common mental disorders.

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.0042916

Cites

23 of 23 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

2 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [19]Nolan G (2009) Developing a Local Tariff for IAPT Services in NHS East of England. Cambridge: NHS East of England.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hammond, G. C., Croudace, T. J., Radhakrishnan, M., Lafortune, L., Watson, A., McMillan-Shields, F., & Jones, P. B.
Affiliations
  • National Health Service (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Jones, Peter B.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-09-28
Volume
7
Issue
9
Pages
e42916
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2100929770
Cited by
79
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
9.03
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)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0606-1335, NF-SI-0509-10215)
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
face-to-face therapy, depression, generalized anxiety disorder, work and social functioning, Improving Access to Psychological Therapies, common mental disorders, non-inferiority, symptom severity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Young Adult, Propensity Score

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