Cited by 80Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Preferences for Depression Treatment Including Internet-Based Interventions: Results From a Large Sample of Primary Care Patients

Open access
Dorow, Marie, Löbner, Margrit, Pabst, Alexander, Stein, Janine, Riedel-Heller, Steffi G.·2018·Frontiers in Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: To date, little is known about treatment preferences for depression concerning new media. This study aims to (1) investigate treatment preferences for depression including internet-based interventions and (2) examine subgroup differences concerning age, gender and severity of depression as well as patient-related factors associated with treatment preferences. Methods: Data were derived from the baseline assessment of the @ktiv-trial. Depression treatment preferences were assessed from n=641 primary care patients with mild to moderate depression regarding the following treatments: medication, psychotherapy, combined treatment, alternative treatment, talking to friends and family, exercise, self-help literature, and internet-based interventions. Depression severity was specified by GPs according to ICD-10 criteria. Ordinal logistic regression models were conducted to identify associated factors of treatment preferences. Results: Patients had a mean age of 43.9 years (SD = 13.8) and more than two thirds (68.6%) were female. About 43% of patients had mild depression while 57% were diagnosed with moderate depression. The majority of patients reported strong preferences for psychotherapy, talking to friends and family, and exercise. About one in five patients was very likely to consider internet-based interventions in case of depression. Younger patients expressed significantly stronger treatment preferences for psychotherapy and internet-based interventions than older patients. The most salient factors associated with treatment preferences were the patients’ education and perceived self-efficacy. Conclusions: Patients with depression report individually different treatment preferences. Our results underline the importance of shared decision-making within primary care. Future studies should investigate treatment preferences for different types of internet-based interventions.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00181

Cites

87 of 87 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?

  • Most patients prefer nonpharmacological treatments for depression and insomnia.

    “The latter is specifically important for most patients who prefer nonpharmacological treatments for depression [91] and insomnia [92].”
  • Barriers to depression screening and the lack of adequate follow-up in patients who screened positive for depression include lack of resources for treatment referrals, limited access to mental health services, and unequal geographical distribution of specialists.

    “Barriers to depression screening and the lack of adequate follow-up in patients who screened positive for depression include lack of resources for treatment referrals, limited access to mental health services, and unequal geographical distribution of specialists.26,27”

    From Digital health technologies and major depressive disorder (2023) · cites this paper as [26]

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 88 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dorow, M., Löbner, M., Pabst, A., Stein, J., & Riedel-Heller, S. G.
Affiliations
Leipzig University (DE)
Corresponding author
Dorow, Marie
Venue
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Published
2018-05-17
Volume
9
Pages
181-181
ISSN
1664-0640 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2799976014
Cited by
80
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 3
FWCI
10.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Qucosa (Saxon State and University Library Dresden) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Qucosa (Saxon State and University Library Dresden) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01GY1613)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
depression, treatment preferences, online intervention, primary care, psychotherapy, medication, self-help, physical activity, shared decision-making, age differences, self-efficacy, depression severity

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