Cited by 104Digital Mental Health InterventionsObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder: an open trial

Open access
Lenhard, Fabian, Vigerland, Sarah, Andersson, Erik, Rück, Christian, Mataix-Cols, David, Thulin, Ulrika, Ljótsson, Brjánn, Serlachius, Eva·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) as the first line treatment for pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). However, a substantial proportion of patients do not have access to such treatment. We developed and tested the feasibility, efficacy and acceptability of a novel therapist-guided, Internet-delivered CBT (ICBT) platform for adolescents with OCD. METHODS: An interactive, age-appropriate ICBT platform ("BiP OCD") was developed. Twenty-one adolescents (12-17 years) with a DSM-IV diagnosis of OCD and their parents were enrolled in the study. All participants received 12 weeks of ICBT with therapist support. The primary outcome measure was the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS). Acceptability was assessed at post-treatment. RESULTS: Participants completed on average 8.29 (SD = 3.0) of the 12 treatment chapters. Treatment yielded significant improvements on all clinician-, parent- and most self-administered outcome measures, with a large effect size of d = 2.29 (95% CI 1.5-3.07) on the CY-BOCS. Patients continued to improve at follow-up. At 6-month follow-up, 71% were classified as responders (≥35% decrease on the CY-BOCS) and 76% as being in remission (CY-BOCS score ≤12). Average clinician support time was less than 20 minutes per patient per week. The majority of participants felt that BiP OCD was age-appropriate and rated the treatment as good or very good. CONCLUSIONS: ICBT could be efficacious, acceptable, and cost-effective for adolescents with OCD. More rigorously controlled studies are needed to further evaluate the treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01809990.

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.0100773

Cites

66 of 66 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?

  • Adolescents and their parents generally expressed satisfaction with the intervention, and the majority would recommend it to others, corresponding to previous studies of similar interventions.

    “Adolescents and their parents generally expressed satisfaction with the intervention and the majority would recommend it to others, corresponding to what previous studies of similar interventions have found (Spence et al., 2011; Lenhard et al., 2014; Wuthrich et al., 2012).”

    From Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for adolescents with anxiety disorders: A feasibility study (2018) · cites this paper as Lenhard et al., 2014

    The Results (Treatment Acceptability; page not available) report that all 21 participants rated the intervention good or very good, and the Discussion says all participating families gave it those ratings. Our copy does not report whether a majority would recommend it to others. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lenhard, F., Vigerland, S., Andersson, E., Rück, C., Mataix-Cols, D., Thulin, U., Ljótsson, B., & Serlachius, E.
Affiliations
Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Lenhard, Fabian
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-06-20
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
e100773
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2116170399
Cited by
104
References
66
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 2
FWCI
20.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Karolinska Institutet
  • Stockholms Läns Landsting (20120167)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, obsessive-compulsive disorder, adolescents, pediatric OCD, treatment acceptability, treatment efficacy, treatment feasibility, Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale, parental involvement
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Parents, Severity of Illness Index, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Telemedicine, 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