Cited by 47Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesDigital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Internet-Based Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Procrastination: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Rozental, Alexander, Carlbring, Per·2013·JMIR Research Protocols

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Procrastination, to voluntarily delay an intended course of action despite expecting to be worse-off for the delay, is a persistent behavior pattern that can cause major psychological suffering. Approximately half of the student population and 15%-20% of the adult population are presumed having substantial difficulties due to chronic and recurrent procrastination in their everyday life. However, preconceptions and a lack of knowledge restrict the availability of adequate care. Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is often considered treatment of choice, although no clinical trials have previously been carried out. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study will be to test the effects of CBT for procrastination, and to investigate whether it can be delivered via the Internet. METHODS: Participants will be recruited through advertisements in newspapers, other media, and the Internet. Only people residing in Sweden with access to the Internet and suffering from procrastination will be included in the study. A randomized controlled trial with a sample size of 150 participants divided into three groups will be utilized. The treatment group will consist of 50 participants receiving a 10-week CBT intervention with weekly therapist contact. A second treatment group with 50 participants receiving the same treatment, but without therapist contact, will also be employed. The intervention being used for the current study is derived from a self-help book for procrastination written by one of the authors (AR). It includes several CBT techniques commonly used for the treatment of procrastination (eg, behavioral activation, behavioral experiments, stimulus control, and psychoeducation on motivation and different work methods). A control group consisting of 50 participants on a wait-list control will be used to evaluate the effects of the CBT intervention. For ethical reasons, the participants in the control group will gain access to the same intervention following the 10-week treatment period, albeit without therapist contact. RESULTS: The current study is believed to result in three important findings. First, a CBT intervention is assumed to be beneficial for people suffering from problems caused by procrastination. Second, the degree of therapist contact will have a positive effect on treatment outcome as procrastination can be partially explained as a self-regulatory failure. Third, an Internet based CBT intervention is presumed to be an effective way to administer treatment for procrastination, which is considered highly important, as the availability of adequate care is limited. The current study is therefore believed to render significant knowledge on the treatment of procrastination, as well as providing support for the use of Internet based CBT for difficulties due to delayed tasks and commitments. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, the current study is the first clinical trial to examine the effects of CBT for procrastination, and is assumed to render significant knowledge on the treatment of procrastination, as well as investigating whether it can be delivered via the Internet. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01842945; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01842945 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6KSmaXewC).

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/resprot.2801

Cites

55 of 56 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?

  • Research on procrastination lacks validated outcome measures, randomization, and long-term follow-ups, complicating the results.

    “The research also lacks validated outcome measures, randomization, and long-term follow-ups, complicating the results.”

    From Understanding and Treating Procrastination: A Review of a Common Self-Regulatory Failure (2014) · cites this paper as Rozental & Carlbring, 2013

    The Discussion (Study Limitations; page not provided) says the primary outcome measures lack clinically established cut-offs, which may affect the validity and reliability of results. The Results (The Current Study; page not provided) says no clinical trials of CBT for procrastination had yet been conducted. The paper does not establish the broader claim that procrastination research lacks validated measures, randomization, and long-term follow-ups; its own protocol specifies measures, randomization, and a 12-month follow-up. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Procrastination is not considered a psychiatric condition, and determining its occurrence is complicated, precluding the use of diagnostic criteria or a structured clinical interview.

    “However, because procras-tination is not considered a psychiatric condition, determining its occurrence is complicated, precluding the use of diagnostic criteria or a structured clinical interview (Rozental & Carlbring, 2013).”

    From Understanding and Treating Procrastination: A Review of a Common Self-Regulatory Failure (2014) · cites this paper as Rozental & Carlbring, 2013

    The Methods > Inclusion Criteria passage says procrastination is not considered a psychiatric condition and that the study therefore has no need to use DSM-IV diagnostic criteria or a structured clinical interview. It does not say those methods are precluded. The Discussion > Study Limitations passage identifies difficulties evaluating clinically significant change, rather than determining whether procrastination occurs. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There currently exists only one randomized controlled trial investigating treatment interventions for procrastination.

    “In fact, there currently exists only one randomized controlled trial investigating treatment interventions for procrastination (Rozental & Carlbring, 2013), making it difficult to determine the efficacy of CBT for procrastination.”

    From Understanding and Treating Procrastination: A Review of a Common Self-Regulatory Failure (2014) · cites this paper as Rozental & Carlbring, 2013

    The Current Study section describes this study as a randomized controlled trial of Internet-based CBT for procrastination and says no clinical trials had yet been carried out. The Abstract Methods describes the trial in future tense. The source therefore supports one planned trial and no prior trials, but not the claim that one trial had already been conducted. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There is insufficient knowledge regarding the usefulness of clinical trials investigating different treatment interventions for procrastination.

    “In terms of clinical trials investigating different treatment interventions, there is insufficient knowledge regarding their usefulness (Rozental & Carlbring, 2013).”

    From Understanding and Treating Procrastination: A Review of a Common Self-Regulatory Failure (2014) · cites this paper as Rozental & Carlbring, 2013

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

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [21]Donovan DM Marlatt GA Relapse Prevention, Second Edition: Maintenance Strategies in the Treatment of Addictive Behaviors 2007 New York The Guilford Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rozental, A., & Carlbring, P.
Affiliations
Stockholm University (SE)
Corresponding author
Carlbring, Per
Venue
JMIR Research Protocols
Published
2013-11-12
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
e46
ISSN
1929-0748 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1995189113
Cited by
47
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3
FWCI
4.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Research Protocols (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Vetenskapsrådet (2011-38394-87877-7)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
procrastination, cognitive behavioral therapy, online therapy, self-help intervention, therapist contact, behavioral activation, behavioral experiments, stimulus control, motivation, self-regulation, waitlist control, treatment availability, student procrastination, work procrastination, self-help books, treatment outcome assessment

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