Cited by 62Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

The role of self-help in the treatment of mild anxiety disorders in young people: an evidence-based review

Open access
Rickwood, Debra, Bradford·2012·Psychology Research and Behavior Management

Abstract

Anxiety disorders are the most common mental health problems experienced by young people, and even mild anxiety can significantly limit social, emotional, and cognitive development into adulthood. It is, therefore, essential that anxiety is treated as early and effectively as possible. Young people are unlikely, however, to seek professional treatment for their problems, increasing their chance of serious long-term problems such as impaired peer relations and low self-esteem. The barriers young people face to accessing services are well documented, and self-help resources may provide an alternative option to respond to early manifestations of anxiety disorders. This article reviews the potential benefits of self-help treatments for anxiety and the evidence for their effectiveness. Despite using inclusive review criteria, only six relevant studies were found. The results of these studies show that there is some evidence for the use of self-help interventions for anxiety in young people, but like the research with adult populations, the overall quality of the studies is poor and there is need for further and more rigorous research.

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 · 10.2147/prbm.s23357

Cites

106 of 106 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?

  • Digital tools supporting mental health have been proven to be good solutions for existing barriers to care, such as long waiting lines and mental health-related stigma, owing to their accessibility and ability to maintain students' privacy.

    “Digital tools supporting MH have been proven to be good solutions for existing barriers to care, such as long waiting lines and MH-related stigma, owing to their accessibility and ability to maintain students’ privacy [14-16]”

    From Optimization of a Transdiagnostic Mobile Emotion Regulation Intervention for University Students: Protocol for a Microrandomized Trial (2023) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Introduction’s “Self-help interventions” section says self-help can increase access, offer anonymity that may appeal to young people concerned about stigma, and provide flexibility in time and place. The “Barriers” section identifies long waiting lists as a reason parents do not seek care for children, but does not show that digital tools resolve waiting lists. The review also says quality evidence of effectiveness for newer technology-based interventions is lagging, so “proven to be good solutions” overstates its conclusion; its discussion concerns young people generally, not specifically students. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Human interaction has been identified as an important factor influencing effectiveness and engagement with DMHIs.

    “In fact, human interaction has been identified as an important factor influencing effectiveness and engagement with DMHIs (21), but it may also detract from the cost-effectiveness of DMHIs in comparison to face-to-face treatment (20).”

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

5 of the 111 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rickwood, D., & Bradford
Affiliations
University of Canberra (AU)
Venue
Psychology Research and Behavior Management
Published
2012-02
Volume
5
Pages
25
ISSN
1179-1578 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036456691
Cited by
62
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2
FWCI
5.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology Research and Behavior Management (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Canberra Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
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, youth, adolescents, early intervention, barriers to treatment access, peer relationships, self-esteem, treatment effectiveness

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