Cited by 297Digital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationOnline and Blended Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 49 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Blending online therapy into regular face-to-face therapy for depression: content, ratio and preconditions according to patients and therapists using a Delphi study

Open access
van der Vaart, Rosalie, Witting, Marjon, Riper, Heleen, Kooistra, Lisa, Bohlmeijer, Ernst T, van Gemert-Pijnen, Lisette JEWC·2014·BMC Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Blending online modules into face-to-face therapy offers perspectives to enhance patient self-management and to increase the (cost-)effectiveness of therapy, while still providing the support patients need. The aim of this study was to outline optimal usage of blended care for depression, according to patients and therapists. METHODS: A Delphi method was used to find consensus on suitable blended protocols (content, sequence and ratio). Phase 1 was an explorative phase, conducted in two rounds of online questionnaires, in which patients' and therapists' preferences and opinions about online psychotherapy were surveyed. In phase 2, data from phase 1 was used in face-to-face interviews with therapists to investigate how blended therapy protocols could be set up and what essential preconditions would be. RESULTS: Twelve therapists and nine patients completed the surveys. Blended therapy was positively perceived among all respondents, especially to enhance the self-management of patients. According to most respondents, practical therapy components (assignments, diaries and psycho-education) may be provided via online modules, while process-related components (introduction, evaluation and discussing thoughts and feelings), should be supported face-to-face. The preferred blend of online and face-to-face sessions differs between therapists and patients; most therapists prefer 75% face-to-face sessions, most patients 50 to 60%. The interviews showed that tailoring treatment to individual patients is essential in secondary mental health care, due to the complexity of their problems. The amount and ratio of online modules needs to be adjusted according to the patient's problems, skills and characteristics. Therapists themselves should also develop skills to integrate online and face-to-face sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Blending online and face-to-face sessions in an integrated depression therapy is viewed as a positive innovation by patients and therapists. Following a standard blended protocol, however, would be difficult in secondary mental health care. A database of online modules could provide flexibility to tailor treatment to individual patients, which asks motivation and skills of both patients and therapists. Further research is necessary to determine the (cost-)effectiveness of blended care, but this study provides starting points and preconditions to blend online and face-to-face sessions and create a treatment combining the best of both worlds.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This Delphi study found that patients and therapists viewed blending online modules into face-to-face depression therapy positively, especially for self-management, but preferred different online/face-to-face ratios and emphasized tailoring rather than standard protocols. It provides preconditions for secondary mental health care but calls for further research on effectiveness.

Key findings

  • Blended therapy was positively perceived. Self-management benefits included always having access to therapy content (92% therapists, 100% patients), encouraging patient responsibility (83%, 100%), blending therapy into home/private situation (92%, 88%), completing sessions in own time (92%, 80%) and pace (83%, 80%), and less travel (67%, 80%). Main drawbacks were that it is not suitable for every patient (92% therapists, 88% patients) and interpretation problems due to lack of non-verbal communication (75%, 80%).
  • Content preferences: treatment introduction was 100% face-to-face for both groups; treatment evaluation was face-to-face for 67% of therapists and 88% of patients; assignments online for 75% of therapists and 63% of patients; psycho-education online for 100% and 75%; diaries online for 100% and 88%; asking questions about assignments face-to-face for 83% and 75%; expressing thoughts/feelings on assignments face-to-face for 67% and 88%; diary content face-to-face for 83% and 75%; reminders online for 75% and 88%.
  • Preferred ratio differed: most therapists chose 75% face-to-face/25% online (33%, 4/12), while patients most commonly chose 50% face-to-face/50% online (38%, 3/8) or 40% face-to-face/60% online (38%, 3/8), i.e., 50–60% online.
  • Phase 2 therapists (n=9) said there is no “typical patient” in secondary mental health care and standard blended protocols were not feasible; they emphasized flexible online modules, tailoring to patient characteristics, meta-communication, online intake, technology innovations, therapist training, and management support.

Methods

  • A Delphi method was used: Phase 1 consisted of two rounds of online questionnaires with patients and therapists; Phase 2 consisted of individual interviews with therapists. Participants were recruited from three mental health care institutions in different regions of the Netherlands.
  • Twelve therapists (8 female, 4 male; mean age 45, range 28–60) completed both survey rounds; nine patients (3 female, 6 male; mean age 37, range 23–56) completed round 1, and eight patients completed round 2. Nine therapists were interviewed in Phase 2.
  • Phase 1 data were analyzed by quantifying item scores and calculating percentages; Phase 2 interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded by two independent researchers into themes and subthemes until consensus was reached.

Limitations

  • Stated: possible self-selection bias toward more positive attitudes; small participant numbers; the sample may not represent the diverse secondary mental health care depression population; no patients participated in Phase 2; findings are specific to secondary care and cannot simply be translated to primary care.
  • Stated/evident: many participants had no prior experience with online therapy, so benefits, drawbacks, and preferences were mostly perceived; the focus was largely on text-based online therapy, possibly limiting awareness of other technological possibilities.
  • Evident: therapists could not describe a typical patient or a standard blended protocol, limiting consensus on protocolized blended care; the small qualitative sample limits generalizability.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12888-014-0355-z

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

39 Own result · 28 Not checked yet · 17 Own interpretation · 9 No basis given · 5 Own method · 1 Supported

Verify all 48 references — free account

Show all 40 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 45
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 23
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
59 of 59
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Patients receiving blended therapy would have actual duration of therapy stay equal or become shorter.

    “while the actual duration of therapy stays equal or could become shorter.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The preferences and opinions of the included patients and therapists are representative of patients and therapists in secondary mental health care.

    “The aim of this study was to outline optimal usage of blended care for depression, according to patients and therapists.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A Delphi consensus among a small sample of patients and therapists can identify optimal usage of blended care.

    “A Delphi method was used [24], which aimed to find consensus on suited protocols, concerning content, sequence and ratio to blend online and face-to-face therapy for depression.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Online therapy is still scarce in clinical practice.

    “Because online therapy is still scarce in clinical practice many therapists and patients are probably not aware of the large amount of other possibilities that technology can offer.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Therapists have experience with regular protocols for depression therapy among a broad range of patients.

    “This choice was made because therapists have experience with regular protocols for depression therapy among a broad range of patients.”
5 of 5

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Van der Vaart R, Van Gemert-Pijnen L, Bohlmeijer E: Eindverslag Ontwikkeling en Evaluatie van Gepaste Blended Behandeling bij Depressie [Final Report Development and Evaluation of Suitable Blended Care for Depression]. 2013, University of Twente, Enschede
  2. Semlianoi B, Wentzel J: Co-creatie met zorgverleners: Blended Care instrument [co-creation with health care professionals: Blended Care instrument] Presentation 4th NSRII (Netherlands’ Society for Research on Internet Interventions) symposium ‘Designing Persuasive Technology to Improve eHealth Interventions’. June 20th 2014, Enschede: University of Twente.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 297

Metadata

Authors
van der Vaart, R., Witting, M., Riper, H., Kooistra, L., Bohlmeijer, E. T., & van Gemert-Pijnen, L. J.
Affiliations
  • Saxion (NL)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Twente (NL)
Venue
BMC Psychiatry
Published
2014-12
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
355-355
ISSN
1471-244X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2117200319
Cited by
273
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 6
FWCI
25.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Innovatiefonds Zorgverzekeraars
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 › Education › Online and Blended Learning
Keywords
blended care, depression, online therapy, face-to-face therapy, online modules, therapist preferences, patient preferences, self-management, psychoeducation, secondary mental health care, treatment tailoring, therapist skills
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Health, Clinical Protocols, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Delphi Technique, Depressive Disorder, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Personal Satisfaction, Psychotherapy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Care, Patient Satisfaction, Remote Consultation, Internet, Consensus, Young Adult, Patient Preference

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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