<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Internet-based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is a New Option for Depression</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scienceline.org/2009/11/22/internet-based-cognitive-behavioral-therapy-is-a-new-option-for-depression/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scienceline.org/2009/11/22/internet-based-cognitive-behavioral-therapy-is-a-new-option-for-depression/</link>
	<description>The Shortest Distance Between You and Science</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:44:42 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ruth Goldston</title>
		<link>http://www.scienceline.org/2009/11/22/internet-based-cognitive-behavioral-therapy-is-a-new-option-for-depression/comment-page-1/#comment-4244</link>
		<dc:creator>Ruth Goldston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:35:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceline.org/?p=3709#comment-4244</guid>
		<description>This article is confusing, on several counts.  First of all, I do not understand is meant by the statement, &quot;In this study, if seven people are treated using Internet-based CBT, one person will recover from depression.&quot;  Does this mean that one in seven people treated with CBT recover from depression?  If so, then this is a much worse outcome than doing nothing at all.  In the previous paragraph, the author states that,&quot;Internet-based CBT still roughly doubled their chances of recovering from depression.&quot;  This contradicts the previously quoted statement.

Secondly, the statement that &quot;Psychotherapy is basically a cash business...because insurance companies do not usually cover treatments&quot; is false.  Insurance companies certainly do cover psychotherapy treatment by psychologists and social workers, probably less so for psychiatrists who are mainly responsible for medication monitoring.  If insurance companies think they can cut costs by offering internet CBT, or any other kind of treatment, I imagine they will be most interested in providing it as an option if it is found to be equally or more effective.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article is confusing, on several counts.  First of all, I do not understand is meant by the statement, &#8220;In this study, if seven people are treated using Internet-based CBT, one person will recover from depression.&#8221;  Does this mean that one in seven people treated with CBT recover from depression?  If so, then this is a much worse outcome than doing nothing at all.  In the previous paragraph, the author states that,&#8221;Internet-based CBT still roughly doubled their chances of recovering from depression.&#8221;  This contradicts the previously quoted statement.</p>
<p>Secondly, the statement that &#8220;Psychotherapy is basically a cash business&#8230;because insurance companies do not usually cover treatments&#8221; is false.  Insurance companies certainly do cover psychotherapy treatment by psychologists and social workers, probably less so for psychiatrists who are mainly responsible for medication monitoring.  If insurance companies think they can cut costs by offering internet CBT, or any other kind of treatment, I imagine they will be most interested in providing it as an option if it is found to be equally or more effective.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
