Cited by 303Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

The efficacy of internet interventions for depression and anxiety disorders: a review of randomised controlled trials

Griffiths, Kathleen M, Farrer, Louise, Christensen, Helen·2010·Medical Journal of Australia

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To review the outcomes, nature and quality of published randomised controlled trials of preventive and treatment internet interventions for depression and anxiety disorders, and to document the availability of effective interventions. DATA SOURCES: Previous reviews of internet interventions for mental health and related conditions were updated using an extension of the original methodology. All studies included in the original reviews and more recent eligible trials (published before June 2009) were included, together with any trials identified from a search of the health intervention web portal Beacon and the Journal of Medical Internet Research. STUDY SELECTION: A total of 29 reports describing 26 trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: All trials employed a cognitive behaviour therapy intervention program. Of the 26 trials, 23 demonstrated some evidence of effectiveness relative to controls. Effect size differences ranged from 0.42 to 0.65 for depression interventions involving participants with clinically significant symptoms of depression, and 0.29 to 1.74 for anxiety interventions involving participants with a diagnosed anxiety disorder. Of the five effective English-language programs, three are available to the public without charge and two can be accessed at a small cost through health practitioner referral. CONCLUSION: Internet interventions for depression and anxiety disorders offer promise for use as self-help applications for consumers or as an adjunct to usual care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03685.x

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Griffiths, K. M., Farrer, L., & Christensen, H.
Affiliations
Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Griffiths, Kathleen M
Venue
Medical Journal of Australia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-06
Volume
192
Issue
S11
Pages
S4-11
ISSN
  • 0025-729X (ISSN-L)
  • 1326-5377
OpenAlex
W2181769958
Cited by
303
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 18
FWCI
2.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Medical Journal of Australia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council
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
online intervention, depression, anxiety disorders, cognitive behavioral therapy, self-help, treatment efficacy, preventive interventions
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Telemedicine, 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