Cited by 30Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationDigital Mental Health InterventionsOnline and Blended Learning

The perception and needs of psychologists toward blended care

Open access
Dijksman, Ies, Dinant, Geert-Jan, Spigt, Mark·2017·Telemedicine and e-Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Blended care, meaning that online (Internet) components are used in combination with face-to-face contact, in mental health is increasingly encouraged, but research about the needs of psychologists is scarce. METHODS: We assessed the perceptions, design, and barriers toward blended care among members of the Dutch Association of Psychologists through an e-mailed survey. Mean scores (SD) and answer percentages were calculated. Mann-Whitney tests were performed to investigate differences between users and nonusers and primary- and secondary care professionals. RESULTS: Generally, psychologists (63% response rate) had a positive perception toward blended care and they intended to use it in future (M = 3.71, SD = 1.19). Users of blended care and secondary care professionals were more positive toward blended care than nonusers and primary care professionals. Online psychoeducation, diary forms, and exercises for different therapeutic approaches and communication technology configurations were most welcomed. Still, quite some barriers were mentioned before professionals would use blended care. CONCLUSIONS: Psychologists had a positive perception toward blended care, as long as attention is paid to the perceived barriers. Results of this survey could be used in the development of online components that correspond to the needs of professionals. Reviewing the needs of psychologists, e-health components of different therapeutic approaches, apart from cognitive behavioral therapy, are welcomed. Future research is necessary to gain insight in the (cost) effectiveness of blended care for different types of patients (e.g., transdiagnostic interventions) and of different therapeutic approaches.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/tmj.2017.0031

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dijksman, I., Dinant, G.-J., & Spigt, M.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Spigt, Mark
Venue
Telemedicine and e-Health
Published
2017-12
Volume
23
Issue
12
Pages
983-995
ISSN
  • 1530-5627 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-3669
OpenAlex
W2619319540
Cited by
30
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Telemedicine Journal and e-Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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 › Education › Online and Blended Learning
Keywords
blended care, psychologists' perceptions, e-health, online psychoeducation, implementation barriers, primary care, secondary care, communication technology, cognitive behavioral therapy, transdiagnostic treatment
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Communication, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Patient Education as Topic, Perception, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Internet

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