Cited by 2Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationCancer survivorship and careDigital Mental Health Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Remote or in-person cancer support? Therapist and service user preferences

Johnson, Caroline, Gallagher, Ailish, Rhodes, Ellen, Smith, Sue·2023·British Journal of Healthcare Management

Abstract

Background/Aims: Remote service delivery became a key method of providing therapy for psychological oncology services during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. This study aimed to understand the experiences and preferences of both patients and therapists who undertook remote psychological therapy in a cancer support service, with a view to informing ongoing service provision. Methods: A total of 99 out of 152 invited patients completed an online mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) audit survey. All patient participants had accessed therapy with the psycho-oncology support team at Guy's Cancer Centre in London. Of the 12 therapists and four trainee therapists working in this service, 11 and two from each group (respectively) completed a corresponding survey about their experiences as therapists. For quantitative data, descriptive statistics were collated. Results: Patients rated their experience of remote therapy as positive, reporting that they felt respected, understood and confident during therapy, and acknowledged the associated advantages of increased accessibility and infection control. Despite this, 87% of patients and 100% of therapists expressed a preference to access or deliver therapy in person, with patients identifying human connection and relationship building as key reasons for choosing in-person delivery. Therapists valued the relational aspects of in-person psychological support and reported that remote delivery had negatively affected the quality of therapy delivered. Conclusions: Understanding the needs and preferences of patients and therapists is important in informing ongoing psychological service delivery. The results highlight the importance of retaining provision for in-person service delivery and offering choice to patients in how they access psychological support, in line with personalised care recommendations made by the NHS Long Term Plan.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.12968/bjhc.2022.0044

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 11 · Cited by 2

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Gennaro A, 2019, Res Psychother, 22, 333

Metadata

Authors
Johnson, C., Gallagher, A., Rhodes, E., & Smith, S.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
  • University of Essex (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Guy's Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Smith, Sue
Venue
British Journal of Healthcare Management
Published
2023-03-02
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
91-100
ISSN
  • 1358-0574 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-7382
OpenAlex
W4323310452
Cited by
2
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
0.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
British Journal of Healthcare Management (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
cancer support services, remote therapy, in-person therapy, patient preferences, therapist experience, service delivery, COVID-19 pandemic, human connection, infection control

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Remote or in-person cancer support? Therapist and service user preferences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.12968/bjhc.2022.0044
The paper
Johnson, C., Gallagher, A., Rhodes, E., & Smith, S. (2023). Remote or in-person cancer support? Therapist and service user preferences. British Journal of Healthcare Management. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjhc.2022.0044