Internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy for university students: Preference trial for various course durations
Internet Interventions, ISSN: 2214-7829, Vol: 39, Page: 100796
2025
- 8Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures8
- Readers8
Article Description
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. University students ( N = 72) were offered a choice of a transdiagnostic ICBT course of three different durations (i.e., ultra-brief with no time locks, brief, or standard-length). The trial examined course preferences, predictors of preferences, treatment outcomes (depression, anxiety, and perceived academic functioning) at post-treatment and 4-month follow-up, as well as treatment engagement and satisfaction across course options. 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: d = 1.26, 95 % CI [0.84, 1.69]; standard: d = 1.43, 95 % CI [0.88, 1.98]) and anxiety (brief: d = 1.40, 95 % CI [0.96, 1.84]; standard: d = 1.59, 95 % CI [1.03, 2.15]), and small but not significant improvements in perceived academic functioning (brief: d = 0.27, 95 % CI [−0.12, 0.67]; standard: d = 0.44, 95 % CI [−0.07, 0.95]). At 4-month follow-up, improvements in depression and anxiety were maintained and improvements in perceived academic functioning reached significance in both groups, with medium effects found. There were no pre-treatment between-group differences in demographic or clinical characteristics and treatment satisfaction was comparable between the groups. The percentage of clients who accessed all lessons was similar in the brief (59.4 %) and standard (55.6 %) courses. 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.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214782924000897; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2024.100796; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85211094111&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39720337; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2214782924000897; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2024.100796
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know