Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32293577›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2020

A Web- and Mobile-Based Intervention for Comorbid, Recurrent Depression in Patients With Chronic Back Pain on Sick Leave (Get.Back): Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial on Feasibility, User Satisfaction, and Effectiveness.

Sandra Schlicker, Harald Baumeister, Claudia Buntrock, Lasse Sander, Sarah Paganini, Jiaxi Lin, Matthias Berking, Dirk Lehr, David Daniel Ebert

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 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. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Sandra SchlickerDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1340-2095
Harald BaumeisterDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2040-661X
Claudia BuntrockDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4974-5455
Lasse SanderDepartment of Rehabilitationpsychology and Psychotherapy, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4222-9837
Sarah PaganiniDepartment of Sport and Sport Science, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4593-6278
Jiaxi LinDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Medical Center, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7021-3621
Matthias BerkingDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5903-4748
Dirk LehrHealth Psychology and Applied Biological Psychology, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5560-3605
David Daniel EbertDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6820-0146
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEUniversity of Freiburg · DELeuphana University of Lüneburg · DEPhilipps University of Marburg · DEUniversität Ulm · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic back pain (CBP) is linked to a higher prevalence and higher occurrence of major depressive disorder (MDD) and can lead to reduced quality of life. Unfortunately, individuals with both CBP and recurrent MDD are underidentified. Utilizing health care insurance data may provide a possibility to better identify this complex population. In addition, internet- and mobile-based interventions might enhance the availability of existing treatments and provide help to those highly burdened individuals.

objectiveThis pilot randomized controlled trial investigated the feasibility of recruitment via the health records of a German health insurance company. The study also examined user satisfaction and effectiveness of a 9-week cognitive behavioral therapy and Web- and mobile-based guided self-help intervention Get.Back in CBP patients with recurrent MDD on sick leave compared with a waitlist control condition.

methodsHealth records from a German health insurance company were used to identify and recruit participants (N=76) via invitation letters. Study outcomes were measured using Web-based self-report assessments at baseline, posttreatment (9 weeks), and a 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity (Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression); secondary outcomes included anxiety (Hamilton Anxiety and Depression Scale), quality of life (Assessment of Quality of Life), pain-related variables (Oswestry Disability Index, Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, and pain intensity), and negative effects (Inventory for the Assessment of Negative Effects of Psychotherapy).

resultsThe total enrollment rate with the recruitment strategy used was 1.26% (76/6000). Participants completed 4.8 modules (SD 2.6, range 0-7) of Get.Back. The overall user satisfaction was favorable (mean Client Satisfaction Questionnaire score=24.5, SD 5.2). Covariance analyses showed a small but statistically significant reduction in depressive symptom severity in the intervention group (n=40) at posttreatment compared with the waitlist control group (n=36; F

conclusionsThese results suggest that participants with comorbid depression and CBP on sick leave may benefit from internet- and mobile-based interventions, as exemplified with the positive user satisfaction ratings. The recruitment strategy via health insurance letter invitations appeared feasible, but more research is needed to understand how response rates in untreated individuals with CBP and comorbid depression can be increased.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00010820; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do? navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00010820.

Indexed as

depressive disorderlow back painmental healthpilot projectsick leave

Identifiers

PMID32293577
PMCPMC7191351
OpenAlexW3016213546

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.