A randomized trial of face-to-face counselling versus telephone counselling versus bibliotherapy for occupational stress

Catherine Kilfedder, Kevin Power, Thanos Karatzias*, Aileen McCafferty, Karen Niven, Zoë Chouliara, Lisa Galloway, Stephen Sharp

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)


Objective. The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness and acceptability of three interventions for occupational stress. Methods/design. A total of 90 National Health Service employees were randomized to face-to-face counselling or telephone counselling or bibliotherapy. Outcomes were assessed at post-intervention and 4-month follow-up. Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE), General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) were used to evaluate intervention outcomes. An intention-to-treat analyses was performed. Results. Repeated measures analysis revealed significant time effects on all measures with the exception of CORE Risk. No significant group effects were detected on all outcome measures. No time by group significant interaction effects were detected on any of the outcome measures with the exception of CORE Functioning and GHQ total. With regard to acceptability of interventions, participants expressed a preference for face-to-face counselling over the other two modalities. Conclusions. Overall, it was concluded that the three intervention groups are equally effective. Given that bibliotherapy is the least costly of the three, results from the present study might be considered in relation to a stepped care approach to occupational stress management with bibliotherapy as the first line of intervention, followed by telephone and face-to-face counselling as required.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)223-242
Number of pages20
JournalPsychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2010
Externally publishedYes


Cite this