4.3 Article

Computerized cognitive behaviour therapy for depression in people with a chronic physical illness

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 729-744

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12014

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeComputerized cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) is becoming an increasingly well-recognized therapeutic option for the treatment of depression. With acknowledged high prevalence of depression within chronic physical ill-health populations and a need to increase access to psychological therapies, cCBT represents a low-intensity intervention with the potential to have great utility within health care settings. MethodsThis article systematically reviews the evidence for the effectiveness of cCBT for the treatment of depression with people who have a chronic physical health problem. A comprehensive search was conducted to identify relevant randomized, controlled trials. Identified studies were quality-assessed, and data were extracted by two reviewers. ResultsOne study investigating cCBT for the treatment of depression in people with diabetes fulfilled inclusion criteria. The trial reported positive outcomes compared to a waiting-list control condition. ConclusionsThe available literature suggests cCBT programmes may be beneficial for populations with a chronic physical illness experiencing depression. This conclusion is based on the findings of a single study, which involved the evaluation of a cCBT package by its developers, included a short follow-up and featured specialist health care support. Additionally, the study reported considerable attrition suggesting the intervention might not have been acceptable to many participants. It is likely that cCBT may be a way in which to increase access to psychological therapies. However, prior to any definitive conclusions being made, further high-quality research to establish the acceptability, feasibility, efficacy, and effectiveness of cCBT for specific chronic physical health conditions is required.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据