Search

Background: Internet-based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (iCBT) for the treatment of depressive disorders is innovative and promising. Various studies have demonstrated large effect sizes up to 2.27, but implementation in routine practice lags behind. Mental health therapists play a significant role in the uptake of internet-based interventions. Therefore, it is interesting to study factors that influence the therapists in whether they apply internet-based therapy or not. This study, as part of the European implementation project MasterMind, aims to identity the factors that promote or hinder therapists in the use of iCBT in depression care. Methods/Design: The uptake of iCBT by therapists in routine mental health care practice for the treatment of depression will be evaluated by a mixed method approach, to provide an understanding of the implementation factors (quantitative), and to ascertain the facilitating and hindering factors in the involvement of therapists in the implementation of iCBT (qualitative). The involvement of therapists in the implementation of iCBT is analysed following the RE-AIM framework on the five dimensions Reach, Efficacy/Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance. This enables us to evaluate the reach of therapists, the impact of iCBT on depression care, the extent to which therapists adopt iCBT, the extent to which iCBT is delivered as intended, and how iCBT can be maintained over time. Discussion: The results will provide valuable insight into the role of therapists in the implementation of iCBT for depression in secondary mental health care settings. They will result in concrete recommendations for how therapists can be facilitated in implementing and up-scaling iCBT for depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) is an effective and acceptable treatment for depression, especially when it includes guidance, but its treatment adherence has not yet been systematically studied. We conducted a meta-analysis, comparing the adherence to guided iCBT with the adherence to individual face-to-face CBT. Methods: Studies were selected from a database of trials that investigate treatment for adult depression (see www.evidencebasedpsychotherapies.org), updated to January 2013. We identified 24 studies describing 26 treatment conditions (14 face-to-face CBT, 12 guided iCBT), by means of these inclusion criteria: targeting depressed adults, no comorbid somatic disorder or substance abuse, community recruitment, published in the year 2000 or later. The main outcome measure was the percentage of completed sessions. We also coded the percentage of treatment completers (separately coding for 100% or at least 80% of treatment completed). Results: We did not find studies that compared guided iCBT and face-to-face CBT in a single trial that met our inclusion criteria. Face-to-face CBT treatments ranged from 12 to 28 sessions, guided iCBT interventions consisted of 5 to 9 sessions. Participants in face-to-face CBT completed on average 83.9% of their treatment, which did not differ significantly from participants in guided iCBT (80.8%, P  =  .59). The percentage of completers (total intervention) was significantly higher in face-to-face CBT (84.7%) than in guided iCBT (65.1%, P < .001), as was the percentage of completers of 80% or more of the intervention (face-to-face CBT: 85.2%, guided iCBT: 67.5%, P  =  .003). Non-completers of face-to-face CBT completed on average 24.5% of their treatment, while non-completers of guided iCBT completed on average 42.1% of their treatment. Conclusion: We did not find studies that compared guided iCBT and face-to-face CBT in a single trial. Adherence to guided iCBT appears to be adequate and could be equal to adherence to face-to-face CBT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]