What I missed from my online therapist: A survey-based qualitative investigation of patient experiences of therapist contact in guided internet interventions.

anxiety depression guided ICBT internet qualitative content analysis therapist-assisted

Journal

Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2023
Historique:
received: 10 07 2022
accepted: 13 01 2023
entrez: 23 2 2023
pubmed: 24 2 2023
medline: 24 2 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The effectiveness of internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT) in alleviating symptoms of psychological disorders has been demonstrated across qualitative and quantitative studies. Generally, guided ICBT is considered more effective than unguided ICBT. Yet, what therapist contact and guidance specifically add to the treatment is less clear. There is a need for more knowledge about how patients experience the relationship with their therapist in guided ICBT. The aim of the study was to explore what patients missed in the contact with their therapist in guided ICBT in routine care. The study used a qualitative design to explore patients´ experiences of the therapist contact in guided ICBT for social anxiety disorder, panic disorder and major depressive disorder. Following treatment, 579 patients received a survey with the open-ended question "What did you miss in the contact with your therapist?" The responses were explored thematically using qualitative content analysis. A total of 608 unique responses were provided. Of these, 219 responses gave voice to some degree of perceived lack or limitation in their interaction with the therapist or the treatment in general. The analysis yielded three main categories: The first theme, Therapist-ascribed shortcomings, concerned experiences of something missing or lacking in the contact with the ICBT therapist. More specifically, the patients expressed a need for more emotionally attuned and tailored interaction. The second theme was Program obstacles, encompassing expressed wishes for increased therapist responsivity and more contact face-to-face. Self-attributed limitations, the third category, concerned patient experiences of barriers to treatment engagement as originating in themselves. This study sheds light on what patients receiving guided ICBT in routine care missed in the contact with their therapist. The patients who expressed that something was missing in the contact with their therapist constituted a small part of the responses in the sample, even after being directly asked. The themes that emerged point to significant experiences of being inadequately related and responded to, both with potential adverse consequences for the treatment. These findings give new insights to the role of the guidance in ICBT and have implications for the training and supervision of guided ICBT therapists.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
The effectiveness of internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT) in alleviating symptoms of psychological disorders has been demonstrated across qualitative and quantitative studies. Generally, guided ICBT is considered more effective than unguided ICBT. Yet, what therapist contact and guidance specifically add to the treatment is less clear. There is a need for more knowledge about how patients experience the relationship with their therapist in guided ICBT. The aim of the study was to explore what patients missed in the contact with their therapist in guided ICBT in routine care.
Methods UNASSIGNED
The study used a qualitative design to explore patients´ experiences of the therapist contact in guided ICBT for social anxiety disorder, panic disorder and major depressive disorder. Following treatment, 579 patients received a survey with the open-ended question "What did you miss in the contact with your therapist?" The responses were explored thematically using qualitative content analysis.
Results UNASSIGNED
A total of 608 unique responses were provided. Of these, 219 responses gave voice to some degree of perceived lack or limitation in their interaction with the therapist or the treatment in general. The analysis yielded three main categories: The first theme, Therapist-ascribed shortcomings, concerned experiences of something missing or lacking in the contact with the ICBT therapist. More specifically, the patients expressed a need for more emotionally attuned and tailored interaction. The second theme was Program obstacles, encompassing expressed wishes for increased therapist responsivity and more contact face-to-face. Self-attributed limitations, the third category, concerned patient experiences of barriers to treatment engagement as originating in themselves.
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
This study sheds light on what patients receiving guided ICBT in routine care missed in the contact with their therapist. The patients who expressed that something was missing in the contact with their therapist constituted a small part of the responses in the sample, even after being directly asked. The themes that emerged point to significant experiences of being inadequately related and responded to, both with potential adverse consequences for the treatment. These findings give new insights to the role of the guidance in ICBT and have implications for the training and supervision of guided ICBT therapists.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36818065
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.990833
pmc: PMC9932993
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

990833

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Sayar, Vøllestad and Nordgreen.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Cogn Behav Ther. 2009;38(2):100-13
pubmed: 19306149
J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59 Suppl 20:22-33;quiz 34-57
pubmed: 9881538
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
J Anxiety Disord. 2017 Dec;52:15-24
pubmed: 28964994
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2017 Mar;35(1):46-53
pubmed: 28277055
Internet Interv. 2018 Jul 26;13:108-115
pubmed: 30206525
Cogn Behav Ther. 2018 Jan;47(1):62-75
pubmed: 28714775
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jul 6;22(7):e16228
pubmed: 32628116
BMC Psychiatry. 2011 Jun 30;11:107
pubmed: 21718523
Psychother Psychosom. 2018;87(1):32-45
pubmed: 29306945
Behav Res Ther. 2014 Aug;59:20-9
pubmed: 24949908
Internet Interv. 2016 Nov 15;7:1-8
pubmed: 30135820
Internet Interv. 2018 May 31;13:24-29
pubmed: 30206515
Internet Interv. 2016 Jun 28;5:12-22
pubmed: 30135802
Br J Psychiatry. 2009 Nov;195(5):440-7
pubmed: 19880935
Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Nov;187:456-61
pubmed: 16260822
JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Apr 01;74(4):351-359
pubmed: 28241179
Am J Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;163(12):2119-25
pubmed: 17151163
Internet Interv. 2017 Nov 17;11:1-10
pubmed: 30135754
World Psychiatry. 2019 Feb;18(1):20-28
pubmed: 30600624
Psychol Bull. 2021 Aug;147(8):749-786
pubmed: 34898233
Internet Interv. 2015 Nov 19;3:1-7
pubmed: 30135783
Community Ment Health J. 2018 Oct;54(7):944-950
pubmed: 29804226
Acad Med. 2018 Mar;93(3):347-349
pubmed: 29215376
Behav Ther. 2016 Mar;47(2):166-83
pubmed: 26956650
Cogn Behav Ther. 2015;44(3):223-36
pubmed: 25705924
Internet Interv. 2019 Aug 28;18:100274
pubmed: 31890623
Internet Interv. 2020 Aug 31;22:100347
pubmed: 32995303
Internet Interv. 2017 Nov 06;11:11-19
pubmed: 30135755
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2021 Mar 16;12(1):1885193
pubmed: 33968320
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jun 17;18(6):e159
pubmed: 27317358
Behav Cogn Psychother. 2013 May;41(3):280-9
pubmed: 22717145
Internet Interv. 2020 Jun 02;21:100331
pubmed: 32577404
Internet Interv. 2019 Feb 11;17:100237
pubmed: 30891422
Psychol Med. 2007 Mar;37(3):319-28
pubmed: 17112400

Auteurs

Hanna Sayar (H)

Department of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Jon Vøllestad (J)

Department of Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

Tine Nordgreen (T)

Department of Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Division of Psychiatry, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

Classifications MeSH