Cited by 77Digital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Advantages and disadvantages of online and blended therapy: replication and extension of findings on psychotherapists' appraisals

Open access
Schuster, Raphael, Topooco, Naira, Keller, Antonia, Radvogin, Ella, Laireiter, Anton-Rupert·2020·Internet Interventions

Abstract

Therapists hold a key role for the uptake of digital mental health interventions (DMHI) within regular care services but have demonstrated cautious attitudes towards such interventions. It is relevant to explore in detail what factors may positively influence therapists' perception when considering DMHI implementation within routine care. We recently assessed therapist views towards Internet-based and blended treatment in Austria (low implementation level). The present study aims at testing the reliability of previous findings, and moreover, it compares therapists' appraisals to a country with advanced DMHI implementation (Sweden). An online survey was conducted February through June of 2019. Respondents were recruited via email and social media. The survey assessed first-hand experience with Internet-based treatment (IT) and blended treatment (BT). To start, the survey presented a short informational video to half of the respondents, then assessed therapists' views on 17 advantages and 13 disadvantages of IT and BT on 6-point Likert scales. In total N = 300 therapists responded to the invitation, of which N = 165 provided full survey data (Germany 114/220, 52%; Sweden 51/80, 64%). German therapists rated the advantages of IT and BT as neutral (IT, M = 3.6; BT, M = 3.8) and to some extent agreed with disadvantages of IT (IT, M = 4.5; BT, M = 3.5). In comparison, Swedish therapists rated significantly greater advantages (IT, M = 4.6; BT, M = 4.5) and less disadvantages (IT, M = 3.2; BT, M = 2.8). Effect sizes ranged from d = 0.89 to d = 1.83; all P's < .001. Those with first-hand experience with DMHI reported more positive appraisals in both countries. No significant effect was found for exposure to the short informational video. The German sample represented essential characteristics of current German therapists; in comparison Swedish respondents skewed towards younger less experienced therapists (P's < .001). Those confounders accounted for a small non-significant proportion of variance (0.1–4.7%). We found that therapists considered blended treatment to have less disadvantages than Internet treatment, and that first-hand experience with DMHI, but not exposure to an acceptance facilitating video clip, predicted greater acceptability on individual level. The responses among German therapists closely resembled findings from our preceding study in Austria, indicating that reliable results can be achieved in small survey studies if sample and population parameters correspond. Swedish therapists held significantly more favorable attitudes towards both interventions. The comparison between countries, however, is limited by a number of potential confounding variables.

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.2020.100326

Cites

61 of 61 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schuster, R., Topooco, N., Keller, A., Radvogin, E., & Laireiter, A.-R.
Affiliations
  • University of Salzburg (AT)
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
Corresponding author
Schuster, Raphael
Venue
Internet Interventions
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-09
Volume
21
Pages
100326
ISSN
2214-7829 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3021166376
Cited by
77
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 5
FWCI
11.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Internet Interventions (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
digital mental health interventions, online therapy, blended treatment, therapist attitudes, acceptability, implementation in routine care, therapist experience, cross-national comparison, Germany, Sweden, replication, informational videos, therapist characteristics, therapist gender, therapist workload, therapist motivation, therapist self-efficacy

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