Cited by 56Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

An internet-based guided self-help intervention for panic symptoms: randomized controlled trial

Open access
van Ballegooijen, Wouter, Riper, Heleen, Klein, Britt, Ebert, David Daniel, Kramer, Jeannet, Meulenbeek, Peter, Cuijpers, Pim·2013·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Internet-based guided self-help is efficacious for panic disorder, but it is not known whether such treatment is effective for milder panic symptoms as well. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of Don't Panic Online, an Internet-based self-help course for mild panic symptoms, which is based on cognitive behavioral principles and includes guidance by email. METHODS: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted. Participants (N=126) were recruited from the general population and randomized to either the intervention group or to a waiting-list control group. Inclusion criteria were a Panic Disorder Severity Scale-Self Report (PDSS-SR) score between 5-15 and no suicide risk. Panic symptom severity was the primary outcome measure; secondary outcome measures were anxiety and depressive symptom severity. Measurements were conducted online and took place at baseline and 12 weeks after baseline (T1). At baseline, diagnoses were obtained by telephone interviews. RESULTS: Analyses of covariance (intention-to-treat) showed no significant differences in panic symptom reduction between groups. Completers-only analyses revealed a moderate effect size in favor of the intervention group (Cohen's d=0.73, P=.01). Only 27% of the intervention group finished lesson 4 or more (out of 6). Nonresponse at T1 was high for the total sample (42.1%). Diagnostic interviews showed that many participants suffered from comorbid depression and anxiety disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The Internet-based guided self-help course appears to be ineffective for individuals with panic symptoms. However, intervention completers did derive clinical benefits from the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register: NTR1639; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1639 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6ITZPozs9).

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/jmir.2362

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • Studies evaluating online trainings with self-exposure elements consistently report particularly high dropout rates.

    “Studies that evaluate online trainings with self-exposure elements consistently report particularly high dropout rates [17, 18].”

    From Efficacy of a hybrid online training for panic symptoms and agoraphobia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. (2014) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Results (Intervention Adherence; Study Dropout, pages unavailable) document substantial noncompletion in this online trial: only 5 of 63 intervention participants finished all six modules, and 53 of 126 participants were lost to posttreatment follow-up. But the Methods (Intervention, page unavailable) do not establish that the course included self-exposure, and the Discussion (Comparison With the Literature, page unavailable) says low adherence was not found in previous comparable studies, which reported 79%–95% adherence. This paper therefore does not support the claim that studies of trainings with self-exposure elements consistently report particularly high dropout. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The recent meta-analysis of Andrews et al. (2018) found a large mean effect size of hedge g = 1.31 for browser-based trainings for PD, indicating that the benefit of the app in terms of clinical efficacy needs further investigation.

    “Moreover, in the recent meta-analysis of Andrews et al. (2018), including only browser-based trainings for PD (e.g. Carlbring et al., 2006; Ballegooijen et al., 2013; Wims et al., 2010), a large mean effect size of hedge g = 1.31 was found, which also indicates that the benefit of the app in terms of clinical efficacy needs further investigation.”

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
van Ballegooijen, W., Riper, H., Klein, B., Ebert, D. D., Kramer, J., Meulenbeek, P., & Cuijpers, P.
Affiliations
  • Leuphana University of Lüneburg (DE)
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • Trimbos Institute (NL)
  • GGNet (NL)
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2013-07-29
Volume
15
Issue
7
Pages
e154
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2132666627
Cited by
56
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • FedUni ResearchOnline (Federation University Australia) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • Multilingual Matters (Channel View Publications) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
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
panic symptoms, cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment effectiveness, treatment completion, comorbid depression, anxiety disorders, general population
MeSH terms
Humans, Self Care, Severity of Illness Index, Waiting Lists, Panic Disorder, 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