Table 2 Self-reported satisfaction with low intensity psychological interventions across studies

Jenkins et al.* [54]

–

–

Lock et al. [38]

Therapy suitability and patient expectancy (TSPE)

Parents reported the intervention as both suitable and acceptable. At the end of session 1, parents’ ratings on the TSPE were as follows:

Suitability of the treatment (M = 7.9; SD = 2.0)

Expectations of therapy (M = 7.4; SD = 1.8)

The Helping Alliance Questionnaire (HAQ; De Weert-Van Oene et al., 1999)

Parents rated the following domains at session 1 and session 8:

Improvement scores rose from M = 2.6 (SD = 0.9) to M = 3.8 (SD = 0.9)

Helpfulness subscale rose from M = 4.8 (SD = 4.8) to M = 7.8 (SD = 4.4)

Cooperation subscale M = 11.9 (SD = 5.7) to M = 12.4 (SD = 4.8)

Wyssen et al. [55]

Custom treatment satisfaction scale

Treatment satisfaction of completers was high with a mean value of 8.3/10 (SD = 1.5)

Reasons for discontinuation included:

Burden/strain (6.3%)

Dissatisfaction with the program (4.8%)

Lack of time (4.8%)

Lack of motivation (4.8%)

Switch to another treatment (1.6%)

Carter et al. [56]

Custom suitability and effectiveness scale

Participants were generally very satisfied with both the guided and unguided self-help versions of the intervention

Guided self-help: suitability (M = 88.8/100; SD = 15.2) and effectiveness (M = 77.3/100; SD = 17.8)

Unguided self-help: suitability (M = 75.3/100; SD = 23.2) and effectiveness (M = 66.8/100; SD = 19.3)

Fitzsimmons-Craft et al. [57]

–

–

Hildebrandt et al. [58]

–

–

Peterson et al. [59]

Therapy suitability and patient expectancy (TSPE)

Participants were generally satisfied with the intervention, with a mean score of 8.7/10 (SD = 1.7) for treatment suitability and 8.3 (SD = 1.5) in terms of expectations for success

Cachelin et al. [60]

Client satisfaction questionnaire (Attkisson and Zwick, 1982)

Participants who completed the intervention (n = 15) reported a high level of satisfaction with the programme. Mean score 30.5/32 (SD = 1.91; range 26–32)

Green et al. [61]

–

–

de Zwaan et al. [62]

–

-

Duarte et al. [49]

Custom feedback on intervention questionnaire

Most participants reported that the practices were very useful and rated the materials within the programme as very important

Strandskov et al. [50]

–

–

Kelly and Carter [63]

The credibility/expectancy questionnaire (Devilly and Korkovec, 2000)

Participants were fairly satisfied with both the behavioural strategies intervention and self-compassion intervention

Behavioural strategies: intervention credibility (M = 7.0/10; SD = 1.2) and binge reduction expectancy (M = 71.8%; SD = 20.4)

Self-compassion intervention: intervention credibility (M = 7.2/10; SD = 1.3) and binge reduction expectancy (M = 69.1%; SD = 19.7)

ter Huurne et al. [64]

Custom treatment acceptability scale

Participants were satisfied with both the intervention and their therapist. Most participants evaluated the intervention as rather (46%, 42/91) or very (35%, 32/91) useful. On average, participants rated the intervention with a 7.6/10 (SD = 1.3) and their therapist with an 8.1 (SD = 1.0)

The majority of participants considered the online contact to be (very) pleasant (77%; 70/91), personal (60%; 55/91) and safe (92%; 84/91). Almost all participants said that the support of the therapist added value and identified the therapeutic support as one of the most valuable and important components of the treatment

Some participants missed other forms of contact (e.g., face-to-face or via telephone)

Reasons for dropping out or stopping the intervention prematurely included:

Personal reasons or problems (33%; e.g., lack of time, psychological problems, lack of motivation)

Treatment content/protocol (29%; e.g., eating diary annoying/too time consuming, assignments not supportive, not enough attention for weight loss)

Online method (21%; e.g., lack of contact, too open-ended)

Grilo et al. [65]

–

–

Masson et al. [66]

–

–

Carrard et al. [67]

Custom satisfaction with programme questionnaire

No data reported, but states that the programme was well accepted by individuals with BED who are seeking treatment

Sánchez-Ortiz et al. [68]

–

–

Traviss et al. [69]

–

–

Striegel-Moore et al. [70]

Custom acceptability and treatment expectancies Scale

Participants found the intervention to be suitable (M = 4.2/5; SD = 0.7) and were reasonably confident that the treatment would be successful (M = 3.8/5; SD = 0.8)

Wilson et al. [71]

Custom treatment expectations and treatment suitability Scale

Participants were generally satisfied with the intervention, rating treatment suitability as 7.6/10 (SD = 2.1) and likely effectiveness 7.5 (SD = 2.2)

Schmidt et al. [72]

–

–

Steele and Wade [73]

–

–

Ljotsson et al. [74]

–

–

Shapiro et al. [75]

–

–

Banasiak et al. [76]

Custom attitudes towards treatment scale

Attitudes towards treatment scores were favourable. Mean Satisfaction with Treatment score was 6.89/10 (SD = 2.46), Satisfaction with GP score was 6.25/10 (SD = 3.20), Satisfaction with Treatment Outcome score was 5.93 (SD = 2.51) and Treatment Credibility score was 8.36 (SD = 2.24)

Grilo and Masheb [77]

Custom treatment expectations and treatment suitability Scale

Participants rated the extent to which the treatment was ‘logical’ as high (M = 8.8/10; SD = 1.3)

Bailer et al. [48]

–

–

Carter et al.* [78]

Custom suitability and likely effectiveness of treatment scale

Participants reported moderate levels of satisfaction with the intervention

Suitability: M = 6.7/10; SD = 2.2

Expected effectiveness: M = 4.8/10; SD = 2.5

Durand and King [79]

Custom satisfaction with treatment questionnaire

Most participants found some aspects of the self-help programme helpful. The intervention was praised for:

Behaviourally-focused early stages

Having a structure to follow

Having someone to talk to

Criticisms included:

Time consuming and discipline

Time constraints of GP affected their GP’s ability to help them

Attending the clinic because of work commitments

Proposed improvements to self-help programme:

More frequent/longer appointments

GP training

More active participation on the part of therapists

Involvements of other professionals

Meeting other patients with similar problems

Palmer et al. [80]

–

–

Carter and Fairburn [81]

Custom suitability and likely effectiveness of treatment scale

Participants rated both the guided and unguided self-help versions of the intervention to be highly credible

Guided self-help: suitability (M = 7.3/10; SD = 2.7) and likely effectiveness (M = 8.6/10; SD = 1.8)

Unguided self-help: suitability (M = 7.0/10; SD = 1.7) and likely effectiveness (M = 8.1/10; SD = 1.5)

Treasure et al.* [82]

–

–