Cited by 29Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

A feasibility open trial of internet-delivered cognitive-behavioural therapy (iCBT) among consumers of a non-governmental mental health organisation with anxiety

Open access
Kirkpatrick, Terry, Manoukian, Linda, Dear, Blake F., Johnston, Luke, Titov, Nickolai·2013·PeerJ

Abstract

Background. To date the efficacy and acceptability of internet-delivered cognitive behavioural treatments (iCBT) has been examined in clinical trials and specialist facilities. The present study reports the acceptability, feasibility and preliminary efficacy of an established iCBT treatment course (the Wellbeing Course) administered by a not-for-profit non-governmental organisation, the Mental Health Association (MHA) of New South Wales, to consumers with symptoms of anxiety. Methods. Ten individuals who contacted the MHA's telephone support line or visited the MHA's website and reported at least mild symptoms of anxiety (GAD-7 total scores ≥5) were admitted to the study. Participants were provided access to the Wellbeing Course, which comprises five online lessons and homework assignments, and brief weekly support from an MHA staff member via telephone and email. The MHA staff member was an experienced mental health professional and received minimal training in administering the intervention. Results. All 10 participants completed the course within the 8 weeks. Post-treatment and two month follow-up questionnaires were completed by all participants. Mean within-group effect sizes (Cohen's d) for the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 Item (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire 9 Item (PHQ-9) were large (i.e., > .80) and consistent with previous controlled research. The Course was also rated as highly acceptable with all 10 participants reporting it was worth their time and they would recommend it to a friend. Conclusions. These results provide support for the potential clinical utility of iCBT interventions and the acceptability and feasibility of employing non-governmental mental health organisations to deliver these treatments. However, further research is needed to examine the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of delivering iCBT via such organisations.

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 · 10.7717/peerj.210

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • The Wellbeing Course has been evaluated in several clinical trials with individuals of many cultural backgrounds, including Arab Australians, and used in a national online public mental health service to treat more than 1000 Australian adults.

    “This course has been evaluated in several clinical trials (Kirkpatrick et al., 2013, Titov et al., 2013) with individuals of many different cultural backgrounds, including Arab Australians, and has been used in a national online public mental health service to treat more than 1000 Australian adults (Titov et al., 2015).”

    From A pilot study of self-guided internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety and depression among Arabs (2016) · cites this paper as Kirkpatrick et al., 2013

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kirkpatrick, T., Manoukian, L., Dear, B. F., Johnston, L., & Titov, N.
Affiliations
  • The Mental Health Association (MHA) of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Dear, Blake F.
Venue
PeerJ
Publisher
PeerJ
Published
2013-11-28
Volume
1
Pages
e210
ISSN
2167-8359 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2126102438
Cited by
29
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3
FWCI
7.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • PeerJ (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)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (630560)
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
internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, anxiety, generalized anxiety disorder, treatment acceptability, treatment feasibility, telephone support, online intervention

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