Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Children and Adolescents With Dental or Injection Phobia: 1-year Follow-Up Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dental phobia (DP) and injection phobia (IP) are common in pediatric populations, resulting in inability to receive dental care. Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT) has demonstrated efficacy, but its long-term effects are unexplored. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term effects of ICBT on DP and IP in children and adolescents. METHODS: In total, 49 participants (mean age 11.1 years, SD 2.1) with DP, IP, or both underwent a 12-week, parent-guided, exposure-based ICBT, supplemented by visits at local dental clinics and weekly psychologist correspondence. Assessments occurred at baseline, posttreatment, and 1-year follow-up. Primary outcomes included diagnostic status (clinical interview) and ability to receive dental procedures. Secondary outcomes included measures of dental anxiety, injection anxiety, negative cognitions, and self-efficacy. The study was conducted in Sweden. RESULTS: Of the 49 participants, 42 (86%) completed the 1-year follow-up. At 1-year follow-up, 19 (53%) of 36 (86%) participants who initially met the criteria for DP no longer did (P<.001), and 17 (46%) of 37 (88%) participants who initially met the criteria for IP did not fulfill the IP diagnosis (P<.001). Repeated-measures ANOVA showed significant improvements, with large effect sizes for self-reported ability to undergo dental procedures (d=1.1, P<.001), dental fear (d=1.0, P<.001), negative cognitions (d=0.9, P<.001), injection fear (d=0.7, P<.001), and self-efficacy (d=1.1, P<.001). Predictor analysis showed greater improvements in older participants and males. CONCLUSIONS: This study discussed the clinical implications of and approaches to ICBT implementation. ICBT for children and adolescents with DP and IP maintains its effects over a 1-year follow-up period, facilitating improved self-reported willingness to undergo dental treatment. Given its accessibility and sustained efficacy, ICBT should be considered for managing severe dental fear in pediatric dentistry. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02588079; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02588079.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".