Cited by 168Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationDigital Mental Health InterventionsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Live psychotherapy by video versus in‐person: A meta‐analysis of efficacy and its relationship to types and targets of treatment

Open access
Fernandez, Ephrem, Woldgabreal, Yilma, Day, Andrew, Pham, Tuan, Gleich, Bianca, Aboujaoude, Elias·2021·Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy

Abstract

In‐person psychotherapy (IPP) has a long and storied past, but technology advances have ushered in a new era of video‐delivered psychotherapy (VDP). In this meta‐analysis, pre‐post changes within VDP were evaluated as were outcome differences between VDP versus IPP or other comparison groups. A literature search identified k = 56 within‐group studies (N = 1681 participants) and 47 between‐group studies (N = 3564). The pre‐post effect size of VDP was large and highly significant, g = +0.99 95% CI [0.67–0.31]. VDP was significantly better in outcome than wait list controls (g = 0.77) but negligible in difference from IPP. Within‐groups heterogeneity of effect sizes was reduced after subgrouping studies by treatment target, of which anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (each with k > 5) had effect sizes nearing 1.00. Disaggregating within‐groups studies by therapy type, the effect size was 1.34 for CBT and 0.66 for non‐CBT. Adjusted for possible publication bias, the overall effect size of VDP within groups was g = 0.54. In conclusion, substantial and significant improvement occurs from pre‐ to post‐phases of VDP, this in turn differing negligibly from IPP treatment outcome. The VDP improvement is most pronounced when CBT is used, and when anxiety, depression, or PTSD are targeted, and it remains strong though attenuated by publication bias. Clinically, therapy is no less efficacious when delivered via videoconferencing than in‐person, with efficacy being most pronounced in CBT for affective disorders. Live psychotherapy by video emerges not only as a popular and convenient choice but also one that is now upheld by meta‐analytic evidence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cpp.2594

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 116 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fernandez, E., Woldgabreal, Y., Day, A., Pham, T., Gleich, B., & Aboujaoude, E.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychology University of Texas at San Antonio USA
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Venue
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-05-05
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
1535-1549
ISSN
  • 1063-3995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0879
OpenAlex
W3146323173
Cited by
167
References
116
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 7
FWCI
4.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Texas at San Antonio
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
external beam radiotherapy, treatment efficacy, cognitive behavioral therapy, anxiety disorders, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, mood disorders, publication bias, waitlist control
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Humans, Psychotherapy, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review