Cited by 91Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

User Acceptance of Computerized Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression: Systematic Review

Open access
Rost, Theresia, Stein, Janine, Löbner, Margrit, Kersting, Anette, Luck-Sikorski, Claudia, Riedel-Heller, Steffi G·2017·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Computerized cognitive behavioral therapy (cCBT) has been proven to be effective in depression care. Moreover, cCBT packages are becoming increasingly popular. A central aspect concerning the take-up and success of any treatment is its user acceptance. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to update and expand on earlier work on user acceptance of cCBT for depression. METHODS: This paper systematically reviewed quantitative and qualitative studies regarding the user acceptance of cCBT for depression. The initial search was conducted in January 2016 and involved the following databases: Web of Science, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO. Studies were retained if they described the explicit examination of the user acceptance, experiences, or satisfaction related to a cCBT intervention, if they reported depression as a primary outcome, and if they were published in German or English from July 2007 onward. RESULTS: A total of 1736 studies were identified, of which 29 studies were eligible for review. User acceptance was operationalized and analyzed very heterogeneously. Eight studies reported a very high level of acceptance, 17 indicated a high level of acceptance, and one study showed a moderate level of acceptance. Two qualitative studies considered the positive and negative aspects concerning the user acceptance of cCBT. However, a substantial proportion of reviewed studies revealed several methodical shortcomings. CONCLUSIONS: In general, people experience cCBT for depression as predominantly positive, which supports the potential role of these innovative treatments. However, methodological challenges do exist in terms of defining user acceptance, clear operationalization of concepts, and measurement.

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.7662

Cites

54 of 54 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?

  • Web-based mental health interventions are increasingly being used in the work environment.

    “Web-based mental health interventions are increasingly being used in the work environment as they have the advantage of being cost-effective, efficient, anonymous, location-independent, flexible, and empowering. They are regularly used for both prevention and intervention [5-10].”

    From Acceptability of Web-Based Mental Health Interventions in the Workplace: Systematic Review (2022) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Introduction describes computerized treatment for depression as an approach to improving access, and the References list a worker-directed web-based intervention for employees with depressive symptoms (ref. 38). These passages support the existence of an intervention aimed at workers, but they do not establish that use in work environments is increasing. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The level of acceptability was categorized into quartiles: low, moderate, high, and very high.

    “Similar to corresponding systematic reviews on the acceptability of web-based interventions [10], the level of acceptability was categorized into the following quartiles: low (− −), moderate (−), high (+), and very high (+ +).”
  • Technology-based mental health services are considered acceptable by healthcare professionals, lay people, and users.

    “These services are also considered as acceptable by healthcare professionals,19 by lay people19 and by users (eg, affected individuals using TBIs).20 21”

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
Rost, T., Stein, J., Löbner, M., Kersting, A., Luck-Sikorski, C., & Riedel-Heller, S. G.
Affiliations
Leipzig University (DE)
Corresponding author
Riedel-Heller, Steffi G
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2017-09-13
Volume
19
Issue
9
Pages
e309
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2754765682
Cited by
91
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10
FWCI
0.95
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)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01GY1613)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
computerized cognitive behavioral therapy, depression, user acceptance, user satisfaction, digital mental health interventions, methodological issues
MeSH terms
Depression, Humans, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome

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