IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0010939.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Internet Treatment for Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Clinician vs. Technician Assistance

Author

Listed:
  • Nickolai Titov
  • Gavin Andrews
  • Matthew Davies
  • Karen McIntyre
  • Emma Robinson
  • Karen Solley

Abstract

Background: Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) for depression is effective when guided by a clinician, less so if unguided. Question: Would guidance from a technician be as effective as guidance from a clinician? Method: Randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing three groups: Clinician-assisted vs. technician-assisted vs. delayed treatment. Community-based volunteers applied to the VirtualClinic (www.virtualclinic.org.au) research program, and 141 participants with major depressive disorder were randomized. Participants in the clinician- and technician-assisted groups received access to an iCBT program for depression comprising 6 online lessons, weekly homework assignments, and weekly supportive contact over a treatment period of 8 weeks. Participants in the clinician-assisted group also received access to a moderated online discussion forum. The main outcome measures were the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Item (PHQ-9). Completion rates were high, and at post-treatment, both treatment groups reduced scores on the BDI-II (p

Suggested Citation

  • Nickolai Titov & Gavin Andrews & Matthew Davies & Karen McIntyre & Emma Robinson & Karen Solley, 2010. "Internet Treatment for Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Clinician vs. Technician Assistance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(6), pages 1-9, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0010939
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010939
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010939
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010939&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0010939?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0010939. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.