Are there interactional differences between telephone and face-to-face psychological therapy? A systematic review of comparative studies.
Conversation analysis
Interaction
Psychological therapy
Telehealth
Telephone therapy
Therapeutic alliance
Journal
Journal of affective disorders
ISSN: 1573-2517
Titre abrégé: J Affect Disord
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7906073
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 03 2020
15 03 2020
Historique:
received:
26
07
2019
revised:
07
01
2020
accepted:
14
01
2020
entrez:
25
2
2020
pubmed:
25
2
2020
medline:
16
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Despite comparable clinical outcomes, therapists and patients express reservations about the delivery of psychological therapy by telephone. These concerns centre around the quality of the therapeutic relationship and the ability to exercise professional skill and judgement in the absence of visual cues. However, the empirical evidence base for such perceptions has not been clearly established. We conducted a systematic review to establish what is known empirically about interactional differences between psychotherapeutic encounters conducted face-to-face vs. by telephone. The review identified 15 studies that used situated, comparative approaches to exploring interactional aspects of telephone and face-to-face psychological therapy. These studies revealed evidence of little difference between modes in terms of therapeutic alliance, disclosure, empathy, attentiveness or participation. However, telephone therapy sessions were significantly shorter than those conducted face-to-face. We identified only a small number of heterogeneous studies, many of which used non-randomised, opportunity samples and did not use validated measures to assess the constructs under investigation. Disparate therapeutic modalities were used across studies and samples included both clinically diagnosed and non-clinical populations. Available evidence suggests a lack of support for the viewpoint that the telephone has a detrimental effect on interactional aspects of psychological therapy. The challenge for clinical practice is to translate this evidence into a change in practitioner and patient attitudes and behaviours. In order to do so, it is important to understand and address the breadth of factors that underpin ongoing ambivalence towards the telephone mode, which pose a barrier to wider implementation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite comparable clinical outcomes, therapists and patients express reservations about the delivery of psychological therapy by telephone. These concerns centre around the quality of the therapeutic relationship and the ability to exercise professional skill and judgement in the absence of visual cues. However, the empirical evidence base for such perceptions has not been clearly established.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to establish what is known empirically about interactional differences between psychotherapeutic encounters conducted face-to-face vs. by telephone.
RESULTS
The review identified 15 studies that used situated, comparative approaches to exploring interactional aspects of telephone and face-to-face psychological therapy. These studies revealed evidence of little difference between modes in terms of therapeutic alliance, disclosure, empathy, attentiveness or participation. However, telephone therapy sessions were significantly shorter than those conducted face-to-face.
LIMITATIONS
We identified only a small number of heterogeneous studies, many of which used non-randomised, opportunity samples and did not use validated measures to assess the constructs under investigation. Disparate therapeutic modalities were used across studies and samples included both clinically diagnosed and non-clinical populations.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence suggests a lack of support for the viewpoint that the telephone has a detrimental effect on interactional aspects of psychological therapy. The challenge for clinical practice is to translate this evidence into a change in practitioner and patient attitudes and behaviours. In order to do so, it is important to understand and address the breadth of factors that underpin ongoing ambivalence towards the telephone mode, which pose a barrier to wider implementation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32090733
pii: S0165-0327(19)31974-3
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.057
pmc: PMC7049904
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
120-131Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : RP-PG-1016-20010
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Références
Telemed J E Health. 2013 Jun;19(6):444-54
pubmed: 23697504
J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Feb;24(2):65-74
pubmed: 28038505
ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2007 Oct-Dec;30(4):353-66
pubmed: 18025870
J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Oct;22(10):1429-33
pubmed: 17674111
BMJ. 2006 Oct 28;333(7574):883
pubmed: 16935946
BMC Psychiatry. 2017 Feb 22;17(1):77
pubmed: 28222706
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Oct;81(1):119-25
pubmed: 20223616
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014 Dec;53(12):1298-1307.e2
pubmed: 25457928
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014 Apr;82(2):349-54
pubmed: 24447003
Am J Psychother. 1973 Jan;27(1):15-26
pubmed: 4693001
J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 2003 Winter;51(1):101-30
pubmed: 12731800
Clin Psychol (New York). 2008;15(3):243-253
pubmed: 21369344
Acta Inform Med. 2017 Dec;25(4):240-246
pubmed: 29284913
Epilepsy Behav. 2013 Jun;27(3):449-54
pubmed: 23603035
Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Mar;60(3):279-85
pubmed: 16431070
Health Commun. 2006;19(2):89-102
pubmed: 16548700
J Neurotrauma. 2015 Jan 1;32(1):45-57
pubmed: 25072405
J Telemed Telecare. 2006;12(3):122-9
pubmed: 16638233
J Abnorm Psychol. 1958 Jul;57(1):84-90
pubmed: 13563051
J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2011 Dec;24(4):206-14
pubmed: 22228827
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2018 Jun;25(5-6):285-296
pubmed: 29117458
Cogn Behav Ther. 2018 Sep;47(5):383-396
pubmed: 29468940
AIDS Behav. 2013 Oct;17(8):2756-64
pubmed: 23644816
Behav Cogn Psychother. 2015 Nov;43(6):732-43
pubmed: 24960277
Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1979 Oct;49(4):574-584
pubmed: 495700
J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(4):177-84
pubmed: 21357672
Aging Ment Health. 2016;20(5):500-9
pubmed: 25803169
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
J Affect Disord. 2020 Jan 1;260:514-526
pubmed: 31539688
Health Expect. 2001 Mar;4(1):58-70
pubmed: 11286600
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2006 Jul-Aug;28(4):296-305
pubmed: 16814628
Int J Psychoanal. 2012 Feb;93(1):81-95
pubmed: 22320136
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Nov;4(11):863-872
pubmed: 31492643
Psychol Psychother. 2014 Dec;87(4):393-410
pubmed: 24464969
PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35330
pubmed: 22532849
BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Mar 01;16:56
pubmed: 26932326
Health Commun. 2003;15(1):27-57
pubmed: 12553776
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e42916
pubmed: 23028436
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000 Apr;68(2):356-61
pubmed: 10780138
Aust J Prim Health. 2014;20(1):62-73
pubmed: 23217591
JAMA. 2012 Jun 6;307(21):2278-85
pubmed: 22706833