Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26621513›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2015

Patient experience of computerised therapy for depression in primary care.

Sarah E Knowles, Karina Lovell, Peter Bower, Simon Gilbody, Elizabeth Littlewood, Helen Lester

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah E KnowlesCentre for Primary Care, NIHR School for Primary Care Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Karina LovellSchool of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Peter BowerCentre for Primary Care, NIHR School for Primary Care Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Simon GilbodyMental Health & Addiction Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Elizabeth LittlewoodMental Health & Addiction Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Helen LesterSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
University of Manchester · GBUniversity of York · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

Department of Health 06/43/05Department of Health HTA/06/43/504
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore patient experience of computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) for depression in a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy, REEACT).

designQualitative semistructured interviews with 36 participants.

participantsDepressed patients with a Patient Health Questionnaire 9 of 10 or above recruited into the REEACT randomised controlled trial.

settingPrimary care settings in England.

resultsParticipant experience was on a continuum, with some patients unable or unwilling to accept psychological therapy without interpersonal contact while others appreciated the enhanced anonymity and flexibility of cCBT. The majority of patients were ambivalent, recognising the potential benefits offered by cCBT but struggling with challenges posed by the severity of their illness, lack of support and limited personalisation of programme content. Low completion rates were commonly reported, although more positive patients reported greater engagement. Both positive and ambivalent patients perceived a need for monitoring or follow-up to support completion, while negative patients reported deliberate non-adherence due to dissatisfaction with the programme. Patients also reported that severity of depression impacted on engagement, and viewed cCBT as unsuitable for patients undergoing more severe depressive episodes.

conclusionsThe study demonstrates both the unique demands and benefits of computerised therapy. cCBT was preferred by some patients and rejected by others, but the majority of patients were ambivalent about the therapy. cCBT could be offered within a menu of options in stepped care if matched appropriately to individual patients or could be offered with enhanced support to appeal to a greater number of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN91947481.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCognitive Behavioral TherapyCost-Benefit AnalysisDepressive DisorderEnglandFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePatient ParticipationPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchTherapy, Computer-AssisteddepressionMENTAL HEALTHPRIMARY CARE

Identifiers

PMID26621513
PMCPMC4679833
OpenAlexW2186484624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.