Neil Thomas1,2,3, Caity McDonald2, Kathleen de Boer2, Rachel M Brand2,4, Maja Nedeljkovic1,2, Liz Seabrook1,2. 1. National eTherapy Centre, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. Centre for Mental Health, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. School of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Qld, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a widespread adoption of videoconferencing as a communication medium in mental health service delivery. This review considers the empirical literature to date on using videoconferencing to deliver psychological therapy to adults presenting with mental health problems. METHOD: Papers were identified via search of relevant databases. Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted and synthesized on uptake, feasibility, outcomes, and participant and therapist experiences. RESULTS: Videoconferencing has an established evidence base in the delivery of cognitive behavioural therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, with prolonged exposure, cognitive processing therapy, and behavioural activation non-inferior to in-person delivery. There are large trials reporting efficacy for health anxiety and bulimia nervosa compared with treatment-as-usual. Initial studies show applicability of cognitive behavioural therapies for other anxiety and eating disorders and obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders, but there has yet to be study of use in severe and complex mental health problems. Therapists may find it more difficult to judge non-verbal behaviour, and there may be initial discomfort while adapting to videoconferencing, but client ratings of the therapeutic alliance are similar to in-person therapy, and videoconferencing may have advantages such as being less confronting. There may be useful opportunities for videoconferencing in embedding therapy delivery within the client's own environment. CONCLUSIONS: Videoconferencing is an accessible and effective modality for therapy delivery. Future research needs to extend beyond testing whether videoconferencing can replicate in-person therapy delivery to consider unique therapeutic affordances of the videoconferencing modality. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Videoconferencing is an efficacious means of delivering behavioural and cognitive therapies to adults with mental health problems. Trial evidence has established it is no less efficacious than in-person therapy for prolonged exposure, cognitive processing therapy, and behavioural activation. While therapists report nonverbal feedback being harder to judge, and clients can take time to adapt to videoconferencing, clients rate the therapeutic alliance and satisfaction similarly to therapy in-person. Videoconferencing provides opportunities to integrate therapeutic exercises within the person's day-to-day environment.
PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a widespread adoption of videoconferencing as a communication medium in mental health service delivery. This review considers the empirical literature to date on using videoconferencing to deliver psychological therapy to adults presenting with mental health problems. METHOD: Papers were identified via search of relevant databases. Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted and synthesized on uptake, feasibility, outcomes, and participant and therapist experiences. RESULTS: Videoconferencing has an established evidence base in the delivery of cognitive behavioural therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, with prolonged exposure, cognitive processing therapy, and behavioural activation non-inferior to in-person delivery. There are large trials reporting efficacy for health anxiety and bulimia nervosa compared with treatment-as-usual. Initial studies show applicability of cognitive behavioural therapies for other anxiety and eating disorders and obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders, but there has yet to be study of use in severe and complex mental health problems. Therapists may find it more difficult to judge non-verbal behaviour, and there may be initial discomfort while adapting to videoconferencing, but client ratings of the therapeutic alliance are similar to in-person therapy, and videoconferencing may have advantages such as being less confronting. There may be useful opportunities for videoconferencing in embedding therapy delivery within the client's own environment. CONCLUSIONS: Videoconferencing is an accessible and effective modality for therapy delivery. Future research needs to extend beyond testing whether videoconferencing can replicate in-person therapy delivery to consider unique therapeutic affordances of the videoconferencing modality. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Videoconferencing is an efficacious means of delivering behavioural and cognitive therapies to adults with mental health problems. Trial evidence has established it is no less efficacious than in-person therapy for prolonged exposure, cognitive processing therapy, and behavioural activation. While therapists report nonverbal feedback being harder to judge, and clients can take time to adapt to videoconferencing, clients rate the therapeutic alliance and satisfaction similarly to therapy in-person. Videoconferencing provides opportunities to integrate therapeutic exercises within the person's day-to-day environment.
Authors: Emmanuelle Peters; Amy Hardy; Robert Dudley; Filippo Varese; Kathryn Greenwood; Craig Steel; Richard Emsley; Nadine Keen; Samantha Bowe; Sarah Swan; Raphael Underwood; Eleanor Longden; Sarah Byford; Laura Potts; Margaret Heslin; Nick Grey; Doug Turkington; David Fowler; Elizabeth Kuipers; Anthony Morrison Journal: Trials Date: 2022-05-23 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Imogen H Bell; Andrew Thompson; Lee Valentine; Sophie Adams; Mario Alvarez-Jimenez; Jennifer Nicholas Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2022-05-11
Authors: Caroline Zangani; Edoardo G Ostinelli; Katharine A Smith; James S W Hong; Orla Macdonald; Gurpreet Reen; Katherine Reid; Charles Vincent; Rebecca Syed Sheriff; Paul J Harrison; Keith Hawton; Alexandra Pitman; Rob Bale; Seena Fazel; John R Geddes; Andrea Cipriani Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2022-08-22
Authors: Sam Malins; Ray Owen; Ingram Wright; Heather Borrill; Jenny Limond; Faith Gibson; Richard G Grundy; Simon Bailey; Steven C Clifford; Stephen Lowis; James Lemon; Louise Hayes; Sophie Thomas Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Rosemarie Martin; Augustine W Kang; Audrey A DeBritz; Mary R Walton; Ariel Hoadley; Courtney DelaCuesta; Linda Hurley Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 3.390