
AbstractVideoconferencing psychotherapy (VCP)—the remote delivery of psychotherapy via secure video link—is an innovative way of delivering psychotherapy, which has the potential to overcome many of the regularly cited barriers to accessing psychological treatment. However, some debate exists as to whether an adequate working alliance can be formed between therapist and client, when therapy is delivered through such a medium. The presented article is a systematic literature review and two meta‐analyses aimed at answering the questions: Is working alliance actually poorer in VCP? And is outcome equivalence possible between VCP and face‐to‐face delivery? Twelve studies were identified which met inclusion/exclusion criteria, all of which demonstrated good working alliance and outcome for VCP. Meta‐analyses showed that working alliance in VCP was inferior to face‐to‐face delivery (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] [−0.67, 0.07], p = 0.11; with the lower bound of the CI extending beyond the noninferiority margin [−0.50]), but that target symptom reduction was noninferior (SMD = −0.03; 95% CI [−0.45, 0.40], p = 0.90; CI within the noninferiority margin [0.50]). These results are discussed and directions for future research recommended.
videoconferencing psychotherapy, C840 - Psychology in health & medicine, non-inferiority, Mental Disorders, 150, 610, CBT, Professional-Patient Relations, Telemedicine, Therapeutic relationship, meta-analysis, psychotherapy, Psychotherapy, working alliance, Treatment Outcome, systematic review, Contextual CBT, Videoconferencing, Humans, VCP
videoconferencing psychotherapy, C840 - Psychology in health & medicine, non-inferiority, Mental Disorders, 150, 610, CBT, Professional-Patient Relations, Telemedicine, Therapeutic relationship, meta-analysis, psychotherapy, Psychotherapy, working alliance, Treatment Outcome, systematic review, Contextual CBT, Videoconferencing, Humans, VCP
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 280 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 0.1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
