d = 1.73, and for the group treatment it was d = 1.63. Between group effect sizes were low and treatment effects were maintained at 6-months follow-up. We found no statistically significant differences between the two treatment conditions using a mixed models approach to account for missing data. Group CBT utilised considerably more therapist time than did Internet CBT. Defining effect as proportion of PDSS responders, the cost-effectiveness analysis concerning therapist time showed that Internet treatment had superior cost-effectiveness ratios in relation to group treatment both at post-treatment and follow-up.

Conclusions

This study provides support for the effectiveness of Internet CBT in a psychiatric setting for patients with panic disorder, and suggests that it is equally effective as the more widely used group administered CBT in reducing panic-and agoraphobic symptoms, as well as being more cost effective with respect to therapist time.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00845260'/>

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Internet-versus group-administered cognitive behaviour therapy for panic disorder in a psychiatric setting: a randomised trial

  • Jan Bergström1Email author,
  • Gerhard Andersson1, 2,
  • Brjánn Ljótsson1,
  • Christian Rück1,
  • Sergej Andréewitch1,
  • Andreas Karlsson3,
  • Per Carlbring4,
  • Erik Andersson1 and
  • Nils Lindefors1
BMC Psychiatry201010:54

DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-10-54

Received: 6 February 2010

Accepted: 2 July 2010

Published: 2 July 2010

Back to article

Open Peer Review reports

Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

Original Submission
6 Feb 2010 Submitted Original manuscript
25 Mar 2010 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Gavin Andrews
27 Apr 2010 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Nickolai Titov
9 Jun 2010 Author responded Author comments - Jan Bergström
Resubmission - Version 2
9 Jun 2010 Submitted Manuscript version 2
22 Jun 2010 Author responded Author comments - Jan Bergström
Resubmission - Version 3
22 Jun 2010 Submitted Manuscript version 3
2 Jul 2010 Author responded Author comments - Jan Bergström
Resubmission - Version 4
2 Jul 2010 Submitted Manuscript version 4
Publishing
2 Jul 2010 Editorially accepted
2 Jul 2010 Article published 10.1186/1471-244X-10-54

How does Open Peer Review work?

Open peer review is a system where authors know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the authors are. If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published alongside the article. Pre-publication versions of the article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com. All previous versions of the manuscript and all author responses to the reviewers are also available.

You can find further information about the peer review system here.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Center for Psychiatry Research
(2)
Linköping University, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Swedish Institute for Disability Research
(3)
Mid Sweden University, Department of Social Sciences, Section of Psychology
(4)
Umeå University, Department of Psychology

Advertisement