Trial reportThe British journal of clinical psychology2026
Credibility and expectancy associated with ultra-brief and standard-length digital treatments: A preliminary examination of impact on treatment outcome.
Trial report in The British journal of clinical psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveUltra-brief treatments (i.e., three or fewer sessions/modules) are associated with reductions in depression and anxiety symptoms, though the mechanisms underlying their effects are unclear. Research has yet to compare how perceptions of treatment credibility and outcome expectancy (i.e., how suitable and effective the treatment will be) may differ between ultra-brief and standard-length digital treatments.
methodsIn a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial (N = 152), the current study examined the distribution of credibility and expectancy prior to receiving either an ultra-brief or standard-length digital transdiagnostic treatment based on cognitive behaviour therapy and explored whether these variables predicted improvement in anxiety or depression symptoms.
resultsThere were no differences in how credible and effective participants perceived the two treatment options. In binary logistic regressions, higher credibility and expectancy were associated with greater odds of experiencing a clinically meaningful improvement (≥ 30% reduction) in anxiety (credibility OR = 1.68 [95% CI 1.15, 2.44]; expectancy OR = 1.50 [95% CI 1.11, 2.02]) and depression symptoms (credibility OR = 1.45 [95% CI 1.02, 2.05]; expectancy OR = 1.34 [95% CI 1.03, 1.76]) for the standard-length treatment only. The predictive value of these two variables diminished when they were entered into the models together, highlighting their conceptual overlap. Findings also indicated a potential moderating role for treatment preference.
conclusionCredibility and expectancy predict treatment outcomes for standard-length digital treatment. Their influence on outcomes in ultra-brief digital treatment is unclear and further research with larger samples is warranted.
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.