Cited by 28Digital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMental Health Treatment and Access

Acceptance of e-mental health services for different application purposes among psychotherapists in clinical training in Germany and Switzerland: secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey

Open access
Braun, Pia, Drüge, Marie, Hennemann, Severin, Nitsch, Felix Jan, Staeck, Robert, Apolinário-Hagen, Jennifer·2022·Frontiers in Digital Health

Abstract

Background Despite solid evidence supporting the efficacy of electronic mental health (EMH) services, their acceptance among psychotherapists is limited and uptake rates remain low. However, the acceptance of different EMH services has yet barely been examined in future generations of psychotherapists in a differentiated manner. The aims of this study were (1) to elaborate the intention to use various EMH services for different application purposes and (2) to determine predictors of EMH service acceptance among psychotherapists in clinical training (PiT). Materials and Methods Our paper is based on a secondary data analysis of a cross-sectional survey. Respondents were recruited via recognized educational institutions for psychotherapy within Germany and the German-speaking part of Switzerland between June and July of 2020. The survey contained items on the intention to use different EMH services (i.e., guided and unguided programs, virtual reality, psychotherapy by telephone and videoconference) for various application purposes (i.e., prevention, treatment addition, treatment substitute, aftercare). Potential predictors of EMH service acceptance (e.g., barriers and advantages) were examined based on an extension of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Results Most of the n = 216 respondents were female (88.4%) and located in Germany (72.2%). General acceptance of EMH was moderate (M = 3.4, SD = 1.12, range 1–5), while acceptance of psychotherapy via videoconference was highest (M = 3.7, SD = 1.15) and acceptance of unguided programs was lowest (M = 2.55, SD = 1.14). There was an interaction effect of EMH service and application purpose (η2 = 0.21). Barriers and advantages both had a uniform influence on EMH service acceptance (Pr > 0.999), while impersonality, legal concerns, concerns about therapeutic alliance, simplified information provision, simplified contact maintenance, time flexibility, and geographic flexibility were significant predictors (all p < 0.05). Results showed that the extended UTAUT model was the best fitting model to predict EMH service acceptance (Pr > 0.999). Conclusions The intention to use different EMH services varied between application purposes among PiT. To increase acceptance of EMH services and reduce misconceptions, we identified predictors that should be addressed in future acceptance-facilitating interventions when educating PiT.

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 · 10.3389/fdgth.2022.840869

Cites

97 of 97 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?

  • The prominence of social influence in predicting Korean counselor adoption-comparable to performance expectancy-contrasts with Western studies where performance expectancy and facilitating conditions often dominate.

    “The prominence of social influence in predicting Korean counselor adoption—comparable to performance expectancy—contrasts with Western studies where performance expectancy and facilitating conditions often dominate [46].”

    From Exploring Predictors of Counselors’ Acceptance of Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy With Resistance and Job Contexts as Moderators: Cross-Sectional Mixed Methods Study (2025) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says performance expectancy is supposed to be the strongest predictor, and Results Table 5 finds a larger coefficient for it than for social influence among psychotherapy trainees in Germany and Switzerland. The paper does not establish that facilitating conditions often dominate in Western studies; its own results also identify social influence as a significant predictor, so they do not substantiate the asserted contrast. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • An extended UTAUT study of e-mental health service acceptance among German and Swiss psychotherapists found that effort expectancy and facilitating conditions were not significant predictors, while performance expectancy and context-specific barriers and advantages emerged as primary factors.

    “An extended UTAUT study of e–mental health service acceptance among German and Swiss psychotherapists found that effort expectancy and facilitating conditions were not significant predictors, while performance expectancy and context-specific barriers and advantages emerged as primary factors [46].”

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

2 of the 99 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Braun, P., Drüge, M., Hennemann, S., Nitsch, F. J., Staeck, R., & Apolinário-Hagen, J.
Affiliations
  • Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • INSEAD (FR)
Corresponding author
Braun, Pia
Venue
Frontiers in Digital Health
Published
2022-02-28
Volume
4
Pages
840869-840869
ISSN
2673-253X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4214656451
Cited by
27
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
FWCI
3.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
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 › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
psychotherapists, clinical teaching, technology acceptance, UTAUT, intention to use, telephone psychotherapy, virtual reality therapy, therapeutic relationship, follow-up care, prevention, psychotherapy training, Germany, Switzerland, cross-national comparison, digital mental health

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