Computerised Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Common Mental Health Disorders, What Works, for Whom Under What Circumstances? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- 2k Downloads
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of computerised cognitive behavioural therapy (CCBT) as a low intensity intervention for common mental health disorders (CMHD), and investigates some potential moderators of these effects. A meta-analysis was conducted on 49 randomised controlled trials comparing CCBT to other therapies (n = 24) and waiting list controls (n = 25), across the range of CMHD. Results indicated an overall mean effect size of g = 0.77 (95 % CI 0.59–0.95) in favour of the CCBT trial arms. CCBT was found to be significantly more effective than both waitlist and active control conditions. The mean age of study sample and type of control group both significantly moderated this effect. No further measured variables, including guidance were found to moderate this effect. These findings indicate that CCBT can be an effective low-intensity intervention for CMHD and support the implementation of CCBT within the stepped-care context. Limitations of this review, and implications for theory, research and practice are discussed.
KeywordsComputerised cognitive behavioural therapy Common mental health disorders Anxiety Depression E-mental health
- Cavanagh, K. (2013). Geographic inequity in the availability of cognitive behavioural therapy in England and Wales: A ten-year update. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 1–5, (FirstView Article) doi: 10.1017/S1352465813000568.
- Crombie, I., & Davies, H. (2009). What is meta-analysis?. London: Hayward Medical Communications.Google Scholar
- Cuijpers, P., Donker, T., van Straten, A., Li, J., & Andersson, G. (2010). Is guided self-help as effective as face-to-face psychotherapy for depression and anxiety disorders? A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative outcome studies. Psychological Medicine, 40(12), 1943–1957. doi: 10.1017/S0033291710000772.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Foroushani, P. S., Schneider, J., & Assareh, N. (2011). Meta-review of the effectiveness of computerised CBT in treating depression. BMC Psychiatry, 11(1), 131. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-11-131.
- Gellatly, J., Bower, P., Hennessy, S., Richards, D., Gilbody, S., & Lovell, K. (2007). What makes self-help interventions effective in the management of depressive symptoms? Meta-analysis and meta-regression. Psychological Medicine, 37(9), 1217–1228. doi: 10.1017/S0033291707000062.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hedman, E., Andersson, E., Ljótsson, B., Andersson, G., Rück, C., & Lindefors, N. (2011). Cost-effectiveness of Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy vs. cognitive behavioral group therapy for social anxiety disorder: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49(11), 729–736. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2011.07.009.
- Kaltenthaler, E., Brazier, J., De Nigris, E., Tumur, I., Ferriter, M., Beverley, C., Parry, G., et al. (2006). Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety update: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 10(33), iii, xi–xiv, 1–168. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16959169.
- Kaltenthaler, E., Shackly, P., Stevens, K., Beverley, C., Parry, G., & Chilcot, J. (2008a). A systematic review and economic evaluation of computerised cognitive behavioural therapy for depression and anxiety. Health and Technology Assessment, 6(22), 1–89.Google Scholar
- Kaltenthaler, E., Sutcliffe, P., Parry, G., Beverley, C., Rees, A., & Ferriter, M. (2008b). The acceptability to patients of computerized cognitive behaviour therapy for depression: A systematic review. Psychological Medicine, 38(11), 1521–1530. doi: 10.1017/S0033291707002607.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Newman, M. G., Szkodny, L. E., Llera, S. J., & Przeworski, A. (2011). A review of technology-assisted self-help and minimal contact therapies for anxiety and depression: Is human contact necessary for therapeutic efficacy? Clinical Psychology Review, 31(1), 89–103. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.09.008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (2001). Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD report number 4 (2nd ed.). York: University of York.Google Scholar
- NICE. (2009). Depression: The treatment and management of depression in adults. NICE clinical guideline 90. London: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence.Google Scholar
- NICE. (2011). Common mental health disorders. Identification and pathways to care. NICE clinical guidance 123. London: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence.Google Scholar
- Office for National Statistics. (2002). Psychiatric morbidity among adults living in private households, 2000: Technical report. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO).Google Scholar
- Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. (2011). Version 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration.Google Scholar
- Roth, A., & Fonagy, P. (2004). What works for whom? A critical review of psychotherapy research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Titov, N., Andrews, G., Schwencke, G., Solley, K., Johnston, L., & Robinson, E. (2009). An RCT comparing the effects of two types of support on severity of symptoms for people completing Internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy for social phobia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 920–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Watkins, E., & Williams, R. (1998). The efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 8, 165–187.Google Scholar