Skip to content
PaperFren

Depression treatment

iCBT for depression in diabetes

Newby J, Robins L, Wilhelm K, et al. · Journal of medical Internet research · 2017

Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC

Unmodified clinician-supported iCBT beat treatment-as-usual on depression, anxiety, distress, and diabetes-specific distress in adults with diabetes.

Study at a glance

Design
RCT — 6-lesson internet CBT vs treatment-as-usual wait for depression in diabetes
N
N=106 · 49 iCBT, 57 TAU; 91 with baseline data for ITT analyses
Population
Adults with diabetes and depression
Outcome
PHQ-9 (and GAD-7 / diabetes distress) at posttreatment

Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.

Key findings

iCBT produced moderate between-group benefits on PHQ-9 (Hedges g=0.78) and GAD-7 (g=0.72), plus large effects on diabetes distress and general distress. About 66% completed all six lessons; 51% of iCBT completers with data showed reliable PHQ-9 improvement vs 18% of TAU.

Methodology

After screening, 106 adults with diabetes and depression were randomized to a 6-lesson internet CBT program or treatment-as-usual wait; 91 provided baseline data for ITT analyses. Outcomes included PHQ-9, GAD-7, K-10, PAID, and related measures at posttreatment.

Limitations

Self-reported glycemic control (HbA1c) did not show a clear between-group benefit. Sample sizes shrink at follow-up, and results are for a supported Australian virtual clinic rather than fully unguided public apps.

How this study connects

Role on claims

Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.

  • SupportsDepression Treatmentconcept

    iCBT produced moderate between-group benefits on PHQ-9 (Hedges g=0.78) and GAD-7 (g=0.72), plus large effects on diabetes distress and general distress. About 66% completed all six lessons; 51% of iCBT completers with data showed reliable PHQ-9 improvement vs 18% of TAU.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • Randomised PHQ-9 contrasts in this set are modest-to-moderate and endpoint-specific. Kokoro-app adjunctive CBT in 164 participants with antidepressant-refractory major depression scored about 2.5 PHQ-9 points lower at week 9 (SMD 0.40) with more response but not significantly more remission. Internet CBT for depression in diabetes (91 with baseline data after screening 106) produced Hedges g=0.78 on PHQ-9 and g=0.72 on GAD-7; 66% completed all six lessons, and 51% of iCBT completers with data showed reliable PHQ-9 improvement versus 18% of treatment-as-usual.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • Mean PHQ-9 change, response, remission and 'score <5' are different claims. Kokoro-app's 2.5-point ITT advantage came without a significant remission difference. IntelliCare's uncontrolled 37% below 5 is a threshold count, not a randomised remission rate. iCBT's 51% versus 18% is reliable improvement among completers with data, not the same as g=0.78 on the full ITT sample. Treating those percentages as one 'PHQ-9 worked' statistic collapses the disagreements the papers actually report.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • PHQ-9 and GAD-7 do not always move as a pair, and not every digital support changes either. IntelliCare coaching favoured GAD-7 more than PHQ-9; iCBT moved both (g=0.78 and 0.72); the carer forum moved neither overall. Using PHQ-9 as the sole outcome would have missed the factorial trial's clearest coaching signal.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

Open questions

Tensions this paper is part of

From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.

  • Scope difference — different assays, populations, or outcomes

    Mean PHQ-9 change, response, remission and 'score <5' are different claims. Kokoro-app's 2.5-point ITT advantage came without a significant remission difference. IntelliCare's uncontrolled 37% below 5 is a threshold count, not a randomised remission rate. iCBT's 51% versus 18% is reliable improvement among completers with data, not the same as g=0.78 on the full ITT sample. Treating those percentages as one 'PHQ-9 worked' statistic collapses the disagreements the papers actually report.

  • Scope difference — different assays, populations, or outcomes

    PHQ-9 and GAD-7 do not always move as a pair, and not every digital support changes either. IntelliCare coaching favoured GAD-7 more than PHQ-9; iCBT moved both (g=0.78 and 0.72); the carer forum moved neither overall. Using PHQ-9 as the sole outcome would have missed the factorial trial's clearest coaching signal.

Related papers in this topic

Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.