4.1 Article

Computerized CBT (Think, Feel, Do) for Depression and Anxiety in Children and Adolescents: Outcomes and Feedback from a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Journal

BEHAVIOURAL AND COGNITIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY
Volume 39, Issue 3, Pages 273-284

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S135246581000086X

Keywords

Children; adolescents; CBT; computer; depression; anxiety

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research [PB-PG-0407-13049] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [PB-PG-0407-13049] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)
  3. Department of Health [PB-PG-0407-13049] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of computerized cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) for depression and anxiety in adults, but there has been little work with children and adolescents. Aims: To describe the development of a cCBT intervention (Think, Feel, Do) for young people, and preliminary outcomes and feedback from a pilot randomized controlled trial. Method: Twenty participants aged 11 to 16 with depression or anxiety were randomized to receive cCBT immediately or after a delay. Standardized measures were used to assess self-reported anxiety, depression, self-esteem and cognitions, as well as parent rated strengths and difficulties. A feedback form was also completed to assess young people's views of the programme. Results: A total of 15 participants completed the pre and post assessments in the trial, and 17 provided feedback on the intervention. Paired samples t-tests demonstrated significant improvements on 3 subscales in the control condition, compared to 7 subscales in the cCBT condition. Feedback showed moderate to high satisfaction for participants. Conclusions: This study provides encouraging preliminary results for the effectiveness and acceptability of cCBT with this age group.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available