Cited by 15Digital Mental Health InterventionsPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Practitioners’ experience of the working alliance in a blended cognitive-behavioural therapy intervention for depression: qualitative study of barriers and facilitators

Open access
Doukani, Asmae, Free, Caroline, Araya, Ricardo, Michelson, Daniel, Cerga-Pashoja, Arlinda, Kakuma, Ritsuko·2022·BJPsych Open

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Digital technologies have been widely acknowledged as a potentially useful resource for increasing mental healthcare access. The working alliance is a key influence on outcomes in conventional psychotherapy, but little is known about therapists' experiences of forming an effective working alliance in blended interventions that involve in-person psychotherapy and a digital programme. AIMS: To investigate psychological well-being practitioners' (PWPs') experiences of the working alliance in a trial of blended cognitive-behavioural therapy (b-CBT) for depression. Trial registration ISRCTN12388725. METHOD: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 13 PWPs who delivered b-CBT in a two-arm, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of b-CBT compared with face-to-face CBT. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Participants reported four facilitating factors when building and maintaining a working alliance in b-CBT: having more time to deliver treatment, access to a wider toolkit, capacity to tailor components of b-CBT and receiving appropriate training and support. Participants also identified four barriers to building and maintaining a working alliance: time and resource constraints, usability challenges, limited flexibility to tailor the digital programme to patients' needs and lack of confidence in delivering b-CBT. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first specifically to investigate practitioners' perceived facilitators and barriers to forming a working alliance in b-CBT for depression. Findings suggest that PWPs' experiences of the working alliance can be improved by: accounting for the time required to deliver b-CBT in service workflows to reduce time pressures; increasing opportunities to tailor the digital programme through offering transdiagnostic tools and adaptable features; and providing appropriate b-CBT training and technical support.

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 · 10.1192/bjo.2022.546

Cites

33 of 33 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?

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

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Doukani, A., Free, C., Araya, R., Michelson, D., Cerga-Pashoja, A., & Kakuma, R.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Sussex (GB)
Corresponding author
Doukani, Asmae
Venue
BJPsych Open
Published
2022-07
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
e142-e142
ISSN
2056-4724 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4287220633
Cited by
15
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BJPsych Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
European Commission (603098)
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, depression, digital mental health interventions, therapist experience, barriers and facilitators, service workflows

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