Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
INTRODUCTION: Videoconferencing psychotherapy (VCP) delivers treatment to individuals with limited access to face-to-face mental healthcare. VCP's effectiveness has been demonstrated for various disorders and therapeutic interventions. However, there is contradictory evidence regarding the therapeutic alliance in VCP as compared to psychotherapy in person (PIP). This meta-analysis examines whether therapeutic alliance differs by psychotherapy's delivery format, namely VCP versus PIP. METHODS: We searched five databases for trials comparing the therapeutic alliance in VCP and PIP, wherein the therapeutic alliance was rated by either patients or therapists or both. Eighteen publications were included, and the difference between VCP and PIP was assessed. Furthermore, we tested possible moderators of the difference in therapeutic alliance between VCP and PIP by meta-regression, and we assessed the risk of bias of this meta-analysis. RESULTS: The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the therapeutic alliance between VCP and PIP for alliance ratings by patients (SMD = -0.09; 95% CI = -0.26; 0.07) as well as by therapists (SMD = 0.04; 95% CI = -0.17; 0.25). No significant moderators were found. DISCUSSION: In this meta-analysis, VCP and PIP did not differ with respect to the therapeutic alliance as rated by either patients or therapists. Further research is required into mechanisms driving the therapeutic alliance in VCP and PIP.
Seuling et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: