4.1 Article

The Implementation of Computerized Cognitive Behavioural Therapies in a Service User-Led, Third Sector Self Help Clinic

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL AND COGNITIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 427-442

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1352465810000858

关键词

Computerized cognitive behavioural therapy; CCBT; self-help; increasing access to psychological therapies; depression; anxiety

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims: The efficacy and effectiveness of a computerized cognitive behavioural therapy (CCBT) package, Beating the Blues, has been demonstrated in a large randomized controlled trial and several pragmatic studies in the National Health Service (NHS). The current study tests the generalizability of this finding to the implementation of CCBT in a service user-led, third sector Self Help Clinic. Method: 510 referrals for the Beating the Blues program were received over a 16 month period in routine care. The Patient Health Questionnaire Depression (PHQ-9) and Anxiety (GAD-7) Scales were administered pre-treatment and during each treatment session. The 10-item Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), Work and Social Adjustment Scale and Patient Experience Questionnaire were also administered pre-treatment and immediately on completing treatment. Results: More than two-thirds of referrals were suitable for treatment and completed a baseline assessment; 84% of these started the Beating the Blues program. Two-hundred and twenty-six people meeting caseness criteria at baseline completed at least two sessions of CCBT. Of these, 50% met recovery criteria at their final point of measurement. Completer and intention-to-treat analysis also demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvements on key outcome measures. Conclusion: CCBT can be effectively implemented in a service user-led, third sector Self Help Clinic, increasing access to psychological therapies to meet local needs for tier two interventions for depression and anxiety.

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

4.1
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