Cited by 50Digital Mental Health InterventionsPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

The impact of technology on therapeutic alliance and engagement in psychotherapy: The therapist’s perspective

Open access
Richards, Penelope, Simpson, Susan, Bastiampillai, Tarun, Pietrabissa, Giada, Castelnuovo, Gianluca·2018·Clinical Psychologist

Abstract

ObjectiveIn this article, we investigate therapist views on their experiences using a technological adjunct (goACT) to traditional, face‐to‐face psychotherapy. goACT is a web‐based mobile interactive software application that facilitates an interactive platform, allowing therapists to connect with their clients between face‐to‐face psychotherapy sessions.MethodParticipants were six provisional psychologists and seven patients. Data were collected at two post‐therapy focus groups in order to qualitatively understand therapist experience of goACT as a therapy adjunct. Data were analysed utilising thematic analysis.ResultsFour main themes emerged: (1) “discretional use of goACT” linked to therapist preferences and client suitability; (2) “therapist concerns” linked to boundaries, workload, technological glitches, and therapeutic risks; (3) “goACT expands the parameters of therapy” through increased opportunities to provide care and connection with patients and increased access to the process of therapy; and (4) “goACT enhances therapy” through reciprocal responsibility and guided empowerment. Therapists in this study were more open to the use of technology in therapy than has been reported in previous research and did not find that it affected their workload.ConclusionTherapists indicated that when aligned to the specific needs of individual patients, an advanced mobile and web‐based interactive software application (goACT) has the potential to enhance engagement, rapport, and patient empowerment in face‐to‐face psychotherapy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cp.12102

Cites

51 of 51 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Richards, P., Simpson, S., Bastiampillai, T., Pietrabissa, G., & Castelnuovo, G.
Affiliations
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
Corresponding author
Simpson, Susan
Venue
Clinical Psychologist
Published
2018-07-01
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
171-181
ISSN
  • 1328-4207 (ISSN-L)
  • 1742-9552
OpenAlex
W2511659151
Cited by
50
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychologist (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
therapeutic relationship, customer engagement, therapist perspectives, therapist workload, therapeutic boundaries, patient empowerment, face-to-face psychotherapy

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