ArticleInternet interventions2025
Internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy for university students: Preference trial for various course durations.
Article in Internet interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anna vs. Judith: A randomized comparison of AI-delivered psychodynamic and cognitive behavioral therapies for social anxiety disorder.Internet interventions · 2026Article
- A mixed methods evaluation of a pilot open trial of a mentor-guided digital intervention for youth anxiety.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (ICBT) is an accessible and effective treatment option for post-secondary students, but engagement and completion rates are less favourable than in non-student populations in routine care. Studies on students' treatment preferences suggest that a range of options should be offered. Examining students' engagement and outcomes associated with ICBT course options of varying durations can help inform how to optimally deliver ICBT to university students in routine care. Methods: University students ( Results: Of the 72 students who started treatment, 32 (44.4 %) chose the brief course, 36 (50.0 %) chose standard-length, and 4 (5.6 %) chose the ultra-brief course. Between-group comparisons focused on the brief and standard-length courses, as uptake was too low for the ultra-brief course. From pre-treatment to post-treatment, clients in both groups experienced large reductions in depression (brief: Conclusions: As the brief and standard-length course options had similar uptake, outcomes, completion rates, and client satisfaction and similar costs in terms of therapist resources, clinics can confidently offer these options and accommodate student preferences. The low interest in an ultra-brief course prevented evaluation of the outcomes of this course but implies allocating time and resources to offering this option when offered alongside other options is not worthwhile in this particular clinic. Further research could explore whether offering ultra-brief ICBT under different circumstances is of interest and benefit to students.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.