Cited by 44Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of a Self-Guided Internet Intervention for Social Anxiety Symptoms in a General Population Sample: Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Powell, John, Williams, Veronika, Atherton, Helen, Bennett, Kylie, Yang, Yaling, Davoudianfar, Mina, Hellsing, Annika, Martin, Angela +4 more·2020·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Many people are accessing digital self-help for mental health problems, often with little evidence of effectiveness. Social anxiety is one of the most common sources of mental distress in the population, and many people with symptoms do not seek help for what represents a significant public health problem. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a self-guided cognitive behavioral internet intervention for people with social anxiety symptoms in the general population. Methods: We conducted a two-group randomized controlled trial in England between May 11, 2016, and June 27, 2018. Adults with social anxiety symptoms who were not receiving treatment for social anxiety were recruited using online advertisements. All participants had unrestricted access to usual care and were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either a Web-based unguided self-help intervention based on cognitive behavioral principles or a waiting list control group. All outcomes were collected through self-report online questionnaires. The primary outcome was the change in 17-item Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN-17) score from baseline to 6 weeks using a linear mixed-effect model that used data from all time points (6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months). Results: A total of 2122 participants were randomized, and 6 were excluded from analyses because they were ineligible. Of the 2116 eligible randomized participants (mean age 37 years; 80.24%, 1698/2116 women), 70.13% (1484/2116) had follow-up data available for analysis, and 56.95% (1205/2116) had data on the primary outcome, although attrition was higher in the intervention arm. At 6 weeks, the mean (95% CI) adjusted difference in change in SPIN-17 score in the intervention group compared with control was −1.94 (−3.13 to −0.75; P=.001), a standardized mean difference effect size of 0.2. The improvement was maintained at 12 months. Given the high dropout rate, sensitivity analyses explored missing data assumptions, with results that were consistent with those of the primary analysis. The economic evaluation demonstrated cost-effectiveness with a small health status benefit and a reduction in health service utilization. Conclusions: For people with social anxiety symptoms who are not receiving other forms of help, this study suggests that the use of an online self-help tool based on cognitive behavioral principles can provide a small improvement in social anxiety symptoms compared with no intervention, although dropout rates were high. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02451878; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02451878

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 · 10.2196/16804

Cites

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 44 · Cited by 44

Authors
Powell, J., Williams, V., Atherton, H., Bennett, K., Yang, Y., Davoudianfar, M., Hellsing, A., Martin, A., Mollison, J., Shanyinde, M., Yu, L.-M., & Griffiths, K. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Nipissing University (CA)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Powell, John
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2020-01-10
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
e16804
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2984984463
Cited by
44
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
4.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • MQ: Transforming Mental Health (MQ14PE25)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (SPCR-030)
  • University of Southampton
  • Imperial College London
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
social anxiety, social anxiety symptoms, online self-help, cognitive behavioral therapy, digital mental health interventions, cost-effectiveness, general population, Social Phobia Inventory, attrition, health care utilization, waitlist control, help-seeking barriers
MeSH terms
Internet-Based Intervention, Adult, Anxiety, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Male, 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