Therapeutic alliance in videoconferencing psychotherapy compared to psychotherapy in person: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Introduction Videoconferencing psychotherapy (VCP) delivers treatment to individuals with limited access to face-to-face mental healthcare. VCP's effectiveness has been demonstrated for various disorders and therapeutic interventions. However, there is contradictory evidence regarding the therapeutic alliance in VCP as compared to psychotherapy in person (PIP). This meta-analysis examines whether therapeutic alliance differs by psychotherapy's delivery format, namely VCP versus PIP. Methods We searched five databases for trials comparing the therapeutic alliance in VCP and PIP, wherein the therapeutic alliance was rated by either patients or therapists or both. Eighteen publications were included, and the difference between VCP and PIP was assessed. Furthermore, we tested possible moderators of the difference in therapeutic alliance between VCP and PIP by meta-regression, and we assessed the risk of bias of this meta-analysis. Results The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the therapeutic alliance between VCP and PIP for alliance ratings by patients (SMD = -0.09; 95% CI = -0.26; 0.07) as well as by therapists (SMD = 0.04; 95% CI = -0.17; 0.25). No significant moderators were found. Discussion In this meta-analysis, VCP and PIP did not differ with respect to the therapeutic alliance as rated by either patients or therapists. Further research is required into mechanisms driving the therapeutic alliance in VCP and PIP.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 53 · Cited by 57
- Authors
- Seuling, P. D., Fendel, J. C., Spille, L., Göritz, A. S., & Schmidt, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Freiburg (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Schmidt, Stefan
- Venue
- Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2023-03-28
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1521-1531
- ISSN
- 1357-633X (ISSN-L)
- 1758-1109
- OpenAlex
- W4361190289
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5
- FWCI
- 2.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- OPUS (Augsburg University) (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 › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Keywords
- therapeutic relationship, telemedicine, remote psychotherapy, patient ratings, therapist ratings, treatment delivery format
- MeSH terms
- Therapeutic Alliance, Mental Disorders, Humans, Psychotherapy, Telemedicine, 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
