Cited by 65Digital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Business as usual? Psychological support at a distance.

Open access
Payne, Lara, Flannery, Halina, Kambakara Gedara, Chandrika, Daniilidi, Xeni, Hitchcock, Megan, Lambert, Danielle, Taylor, Charlotte, Christie, Deborah·2020·Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry

Abstract

The impact of COVID-19 has challenged the long accepted 'norm' in delivery of psychological therapy. Public policies designed to reduce transmission have made it extremely difficult to meet with service-users safely in the traditional face-to-face context. E-therapies have existed in theory and practice since technological progress has made them possible. They can offer a host of advantages over face-to-face equivalents, including improved access, greater flexibility for service-users and professionals, and cost savings. However, despite the emerging evidence and anticipated positive value, implementation has been slower than anticipated. Concerns have been raised by service-users, clinicians, and public health organisations, identifying significant barriers to the wide spread use of e-therapies. In the current climate, many clinicians are offering e-therapies for the first time, without prior arrangement or training, as the only viable option to continue to support their clients. This paper offers a clinically relevant review of the e-therapies literature, including effectiveness and acceptability dilemmas and challenges that need to be addressed to support the safe use and growth of e-therapies in psychology services. Further research is needed to better understand what might be lost and what gained in comparison to face-to-face therapy, and for which client groups and settings it might be most effective.

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 · 10.1177/1359104520937378

Cites

88 of 88 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?

  • Therapeutic boundaries were established in the virtual domain by maintaining a neutral and consistent background, assuring Lucy of confidentiality and that the practitioner was alone, ensuring screen size, and building relationship through active discussions and open/directive questions.

    “In line with Payne et al. (2020) I established therapeutic boundaries in the virtual domain by: maintaining a neutral and consistent background to calls; assuring Lucy I was the only one in the room, maintaining confidentiality; ensuring my screen was large enough to see Lucy’s facial expressions during sessions; and established a strong relationship by being active in discussions, using more open”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Benford P. Standen P. J. (2009). The Internet: A comfortable communication medium for autistic people? I: Journal of Assistive Technologies, 3(2), 44– 53.
  2. Weinberg H. (2020). Online group therapy: In search of a new theory? In Weinberg H. Rolnick A. (Eds.), Theory and practice of online therapy: Internet-delivered interventions for individuals, groups, families, and organizations (pp. 174– 187). Routledge.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Payne, L., Flannery, H., Kambakara Gedara, C., Daniilidi, X., Hitchcock, M., Lambert, D., Taylor, C., & Christie, D.
Affiliations
  • University College Hospital (GB)
  • Child and Adolescent Psychology Service, University College London Hospital, London, UK
Corresponding author
Payne, Lara
Venue
Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Published
2020-06-27
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
672-686
ISSN
  • 1359-1045 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7021
OpenAlex
W3037299085
Cited by
65
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 1
FWCI
9.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
e-therapy, COVID-19 pandemic, implementation barriers, acceptability, effectiveness, telemedicine, access to mental health care, clinician training
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Child, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Pneumonia, Viral, Psychiatry, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Group, Telephone, Treatment Outcome, Telemedicine, Coronavirus Infections, Videoconferencing, Pandemics

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