Computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy, or CCBT, delivers CBT skills through an online program rather than face-to-face sessions. Because it does not depend on an available clinician or a physical appointment, researchers have been interested in whether it could help reach adolescents with depression who might otherwise go without treatment.
A UK feasibility trial tested this question directly. Conducted across community and clinical settings in York, the study assessed 91 adolescents aged 12 to 18 with low mood or depression. Participants were randomly assigned to either Stressbusters, an eight-session CCBT program built specifically for this age group, or to an attention control group directed to general self-help websites. Forty-five young people were allocated to Stressbusters and forty-six to the website group. Adolescents with psychosis, active suicidality or postnatal depression were excluded, though those with a co-occurring physical illness could take part.
By four months after treatment, depression scores on the Beck Depression Inventory and the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire had fallen in the Stressbusters group but risen in the website group. Quality of life improved in both groups, and costs at four months were similar to those at the start of the trial. The researchers concluded that running a trial of this kind was feasible and acceptable to teenagers, and that a larger, fully powered study is worth pursuing given the pressure on child mental health services.
If you are a young person feeling persistently low, or a parent with concerns, speaking with a psychologist is a sound place to start.
What kind of study this was
This wasn't a large-scale trial testing whether computerised CBT (CCBT) definitely works for teenage depression. It was a **feasibility study** — a smaller trial designed to answer a more basic question: can a full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) even be run well with this population, in this setting? An RCT is a study where participants are randomly assigned to different treatments (removing bias in who gets what), which lets researchers make fairer comparisons. Feasibility studies check things like recruitment, dropout, and whether people find the trial acceptable, before committing resources to a bigger study.
What the researchers did
The trial, run in York, UK, assessed adolescents aged 12–18 with low mood or depression. Of those screened, 91 met the inclusion criteria and were randomly allocated (using a remote computerised system, which prevents researchers from influencing who got which treatment) to one of two groups: Stressbusters, an eight-session CCBT program built specifically for this age group (n=45), or an **attention control** group who were directed to general self-help websites (n=46). An attention control is used so that both groups get some form of engagement and attention — this helps rule out the possibility that any improvement is just from participating in a study, rather than from the specific therapy content.
Adolescents with psychosis, active suicidality, or postnatal depression were excluded for safety and relevance reasons, though those with co-occurring (comorbid) physical illnesses were still included. Depression was tracked using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI, the primary outcome) and the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ) — both self-report questionnaires. Anxiety, quality of life (via the EQ-5D-Y and HUI-2), and service use/costs were also measured, from baseline through to four months later.
What it found
By four months, BDI and MFQ scores had gone down in the Stressbusters group — indicating fewer depressive symptoms — while they had gone up in the website group. Quality of life improved in both groups, and healthcare-related costs at four months were similar to baseline. Beyond these outcome measures, the study reported that the trial itself ran smoothly: recruitment, retention, and acceptability were good, suggesting a larger trial is achievable.
Why it matters, and its limits
This study's main contribution is process, not proof. It shows that running a properly randomised digital CBT trial with depressed teenagers is realistic in real clinical and community settings — which matters given how stretched child mental health services are. The symptom results are encouraging, but this was a small, single-site study using self-reported measures over a relatively short follow-up (four months), and it wasn't statistically powered to confirm that Stressbusters causes better outcomes than the control. The authors themselves frame this as groundwork for a larger, fully powered trial, not a final verdict.
If you're a teenager feeling persistently low, or someone who cares about one, reaching out to a psychologist or GP is a good and worthwhile step, regardless of what any single study finds.