Cited by 420Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationCounseling Practices and Supervision

Therapeutic alliance in videoconferencing psychotherapy: A review

Simpson, Susan G., Reid, Corinne L.·2014·Australian Journal of Rural Health

Abstract

Psychotherapy services are limited in remote and rural areas in A ustralia and across the globe. Videoconferencing has become well established as a feasible and acceptable mode of psychological treatment delivery. Therapeutic alliance ( TA ) is an essential factor underlying successful therapy across therapeutic models. In order to determine the state of knowledge regarding TA in psychotherapy via videoconferencing, a literature review was conducted on research studies that formally measured TA as primary, secondary or tertiary outcome measures over the past 23 years. The databases searched were Medline, PsycArticles, PsycINFO , PsycEXTRA and EMBASE . Searching identified 9915 articles that measured satisfaction, acceptability or therapeutic rapport, of which 23 met criteria for the review. Three studies were carried out in A ustralia, 11 in USA , 4 in C anada, 3 in S cotland and 2 in E ngland. Studies overwhelmingly supported the notion that TA can be developed in psychotherapy by videoconference, with clients rating bond and presence at least equally as strongly as in‐person settings across a range of diagnostic groups. Therapists also rated high levels of TA , but often not quite as high as that of their clients early in treatment. The evidence was examined in the context of important aspects of TA , including bond, presence, therapist attitudes and abilities, and client attitudes and beliefs. Barriers and facilitators of alliance were identified. Future studies should include observational measures of bond and presence to supplement self‐report.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ajr.12149

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

2 of the 104 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Simpson, S. G., & Reid, C. L.
Affiliations
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • Murdoch University (AU)
Corresponding author
Simpson, Susan G.
Venue
Australian Journal of Rural Health
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-12
Volume
22
Issue
6
Pages
280-299
ISSN
  • 1038-5282 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-1584
OpenAlex
W2166097570
Cited by
420
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 90 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Australian Journal of Rural Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Murdoch University Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Victoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Counseling Practices and Supervision
Keywords
therapeutic relationship, telemedicine, client satisfaction, acceptability, therapeutic rapport, bonds, presence
MeSH terms
Humans, Professional-Patient Relations, Psychotherapy, Videoconferencing

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