Cited by 176Digital Mental Health InterventionsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Barriers and facilitators for the implementation of blended psychotherapy for depression: a qualitative pilot study of therapists’ perspective

Open access
Titzler, Ingrid, Saruhanjan, Karina, Berking, Matthias, Riper, Heleen, Ebert, David Daniel·2018·Internet Interventions

Abstract

Blended therapies (BT) combine face-to-face (f2f) sessions with internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs). However, the use of blended interventions in routine care is still rare and depends on the acceptance of key health care professionals such as the therapists. Little is yet known about the therapists' perspective on and experiences with blended approaches. The aim of this pilot study was to identify barriers and facilitators, as perceived by psychotherapists, for implementing a blended therapy for depression. Semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with five therapists, who were part of the German study arm of the FP7-project E-Compared (www.e-compared.eu). All patients (N = 173) were treated in the context of a registered RCT (DRKS00006866) in which the clinical and cost-effectiveness of BT for depression, consisting of ten internet- and mobile-based cognitive behavioral therapy modules and six f2f sessions, was compared to the treatment usually provided by general practitioners. To identify barriers and facilitators an interview guide based on the theoretical domains framework (TDF) was developed. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a qualitative content analysis by two independent coders. The results revealed 29 barriers and 33 facilitators, which are hindering or enabling factors on the levels of ‘implementation in the health care system’, ‘therapy’, ‘therapists’ and ‘patients’. Key barriers stated by all therapists were ‘Limited customizability and autonomy of decisions concerning blending the therapy’ (number of statements, k = 44); ‘Disease-related contraindications for BT’ (k = 25); ‘Negative affect was caused by burden through technical problems’ (k = 18); ‘Limited number of f2f sessions hindered the therapy process’; and ‘Establishment of therapeutic alliance was burdened by technical issues’ (each k = 15). Key facilitators stated by all therapists were: ‘Patients’ interest, willingness and motivation to participate’ (k = 22); ‘Patients' access to online content between f2f sessions and after therapy end’ (k = 20); ‘Preset structure of IMI-part guided the treatment course of BT’ (k = 18); and ‘Effective help with BT in a short time frame’ (k = 15), as well as ‘Reduction of the treatment gap’ (k = 13). Therapists supported the implementation of BT for depression. Results indicated the consideration of a wide range of determinants: among others, the possibility of individualizing the treatment; the autonomy of decision making in respect to the ratio and number of online and f2f sessions; the necessity of providing training; the need to develop a concept of embedding BT in the health care system and funding the additional effort; and the use of sophisticated technical solutions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.invent.2018.01.002

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Mayring P. Einführung in Die Qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Anleitung Zu Qualitativem Denken (5., Überarb. Und Neu Ausgestattete Aufl.). Studium Paedagogik Vol. 5 2002 Weinheim Beltz

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Titzler, I., Saruhanjan, K., Berking, M., Riper, H., & Ebert, D. D.
Affiliations
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Titzler, Ingrid
Venue
Internet Interventions
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
12
Pages
150-164
ISSN
2214-7829 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2782631640
Cited by
176
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 3
FWCI
21.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Internet Interventions (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • OPUS Repository (Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund Berlin-Brandenburg) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
European Commission (FP7)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
blended therapy, depression, cognitive behavioral therapy, implementation barriers and facilitators, therapist perspectives, Theoretical Domains Framework, therapeutic relationship, treatment gap, implementation in routine care, patient motivation, face-to-face classes, general practitioners, digital mental health interventions

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