CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 54Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Internet-Based Interventions in Chronic Somatic Disease

Open access
Bendig, Eileen, Bauereiß, Natalie, Ebert, David Daniel, Snoek, Frank, Andersson, Gerhard, Baumeister, Harald·2018·Deutsches Ärzteblatt international
DOI 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0659PMC PMC6234467
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend psychosocial care as an integral part of medical treatment, but access is often limited. Technology-based approaches provide an attractive opportunity to optimize health outcomes and quality of life in people with chronic somatic diseases e.g. by means of Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs). The present article provides an overview on the basics of IMIs, applications and their evidence base for people living with chronic somatic diseases. METHODS: We conducted a selective literature search in the PubMed and Cochrane databases. Reviews which included randomized controlled trials investigating psychological IMIs were discussed pertaining to their relevance for the population described. RESULTS: IMIs lead to a change in unfavorable behavior connected to chronic somatic diseases. IMIs can foster protective factors like balanced physical activity or risk factors like smoking or alcohol consumption. However, studies reveal small effect sizes of d=0.25 for physical activity and an averaged effect size of d=0.20 for smoking and alcohol consumption. Additionally, IMIs can be used for the (co-)treatment of chronic somatic diseases, for instance to increase disease-specific selfefficacy in patients with diabetes (d=0.23). Studies included in meta-analyses are often highly heterogenous and are investigated in research contexts with limited health care services relevance. CONCLUSION: IMIs are potentially effective when aiming at lifestyle changes and supporting medical treatment in people with chronic somatic diseases. However, results are still heterogenous and the evidence base is limited regarding specific settings, compounding the discussion of possible ways of implementing IMIs into our healthcare systems.

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 · 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0659

Cites

55 of 55 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?

  • More evidence for breast cancer survivors is needed.

    “but more evidence for breast cancer survivors is needed [22–24].”

    From The BrEasT cancer afTER-CARE (BETTER-CARE) programme to improve breast cancer follow-up: design and feasibility study results of a cluster-randomised complex intervention trial (2024) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Conclusion (p. 6) says evidence for people with chronic somatic diseases is often too scarce and heterogeneous and calls for more research on internet- and mobile-based interventions. The Changing lifestyle factors section (p. 3) includes people with cancer among the populations discussed, but the copy does not identify breast cancer survivors specifically. The claim therefore narrows a general research need to a population the cited paper does not establish. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Guided iCBT can be as effective as face-to-face CBT for a broad range of somatic and mental conditions.

    “Previous studies have indicated that guided iCBT can be as effective as face-to-face CBT for a broad range of somatic and mental conditions (Andersson et al., 2014; Carlbring et al., 2018; Bendig et al., 2018) and that (guided) iCBT has an effect on a broad range of outcomes (Buhrman et al., 2016; Ljótsson et al., 2014; Macea et al., 2010; Mehta et al., 2019; Van Beugen et al., 2014; White et al.,”

    From Guided internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy for patients with rheumatic conditions: A systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as Bendig et al., 2018

    The Characterizing Internet- and Mobile-Based Interventions section (p. 3) says that interventions aimed at changing lifestyle factors have effect sizes comparable to face-to-face cognitive-behavioral interventions. The paper discusses guided interventions separately (p. 2), but does not establish that guided iCBT is as effective as face-to-face CBT across a broad range of somatic and mental conditions. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Internet-based interventions can be an effective way to support people with cancer.

    “Internet-based interventions can be an effective way to support people with cancer.”

    From The BrEasT cancer afTER-CARE (BETTER-CARE) programme to improve breast cancer follow-up: design and feasibility study results of a cluster-randomised complex intervention trial (2024) · cites this paper as [22]

  • Digital health interventions might be a viable way to support persons with a chronic illness in their coping and self-management and achieve optimal health outcomes, both medical and psychological.

    “Digital health interventions might be a viable way to support persons with a chronic illness in their coping and self-management and achieve optimal health outcomes, both medical and psychological (Bendig et al., 2018).”

    From Special issue on digital health interventions in chronic medical conditions: Editorial (2022) · cites this paper as Bendig et al., 2018

  • Software agents delivering brief interventions are few in numbers.

    “However, software agents delivering brief interventions are few in numbers (Bendig et al., 2018).”

    From Feasibility of a Software agent providing a brief Intervention for Self-help to Uplift psychological wellbeing (“SISU”). A single-group pretest-posttest trial investigating the potential of SISU to act as therapeutic agent (2021) · cites this paper as Bendig et al., 2018

    The Characterizing Internet- and Mobile-Based Interventions section (p. 2) describes web-based self-help programs and human e-coaches, while the Conclusion (p. 5) discusses increasing use of IMIs. Searches for software agents, brief interventions, and their numbers found no passage assessing how many software agents deliver brief interventions. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [2]Falvo DR, Holland BE: Psychosocial and funtional aspects of health conditions. In: Falvo DR, Holland BE (eds.): Medical and psychosocial aspects of chronic illness and disability. Burlington, Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Publishers 2018; 11-32.
  2. [13]Salzmann S, Euteneuer F, Laferton JAC, et al.: Effects of preoperative psychological interventions on catecholamine and cortisol levels after surgery in coronary artery bypass graft patients. Psychosom Med 2017; 79: 806-14.
  3. [15]Smith TW, Williams PG: Behavioral medicine and clinical health psychology. In: Lambert MJ (ed.): Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons 2013; 690-734.
  4. [28]Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2 nd edition. London: Taylor & Francis Inc 1988; 20-7.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bendig, E., Bauereiß, N., Ebert, D. D., Snoek, F., Andersson, G., & Baumeister, H.
Affiliations
Linköping University (SE)
ORCID
Venue
Deutsches Ärzteblatt international
Publisher
Deutscher Arzte-Verlag GmbH
Published
2018-10-05
Volume
115
Issue
40
Pages
659-665
ISSN
1866-0452 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3238/arztebl.2018.0659
PMC
PMC6234467
OpenAlex
W2907804015
Cited by
54
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
1.23
Type
journal article
Language
de
Open access
Locations
  • Deutsches Ärzteblatt international (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
online intervention, mobile health, chronic somatic diseases, psychosocial care, lifestyle modification, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, diabetes self-efficacy, co-treatment, health behavior change
MeSH terms
Alcohol Drinking, Chronic Disease, Humans, Smoking, Exercise, Internet, Risk Reduction Behavior, Social Media

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