Objective First, to investigate how psychotherapists and patients experience the change from in‐person to remote psychotherapy or vice versa during COVID‐19 regarding the therapeutic interventions used. Second, to explore the influence of therapeutic orientations on therapeutic interventions in in‐person versus remote psychotherapy. Method Psychotherapists ( N = 217) from Austria were recruited, who in turn recruited their patients ( N = 133). The therapeutic orientation of the therapists was psychodynamic (22.6%), humanistic (46.1%), systemic (20.7%) or behavioural (10.6%). All the data were collected remotely via online surveys. Therapists and patients completed two versions of the ‘Multitheoretical List of Therapeutic Interventions’ (MULTI‐30) (version 1: in‐person; version 2: remote) to investigate differences between in‐person and remote psychotherapy in the following therapeutic interventions: psychodynamic, common factors, person‐centred, process‐experiential, interpersonal, cognitive, behavioural and dialectical‐behavioural. Results Therapists rated all examined therapeutic interventions as more typical for in‐person than for remote psychotherapy. For patients, three therapeutic interventions (psychodynamic, process‐experiential, cognitive interventions) were more typical for in‐person than for remote psychotherapy after correcting for multiple testing. For two therapeutic interventions (behavioural, dialectical‐behavioural), differences between the four therapeutic orientations were more consistent for in‐person than for remote psychotherapy. Conclusions Therapeutic interventions differed between in‐person and remote psychotherapy and differences between therapeutic orientations in behavioural‐oriented interventions become indistinct in remote psychotherapy.

This study aimed to assess patient numbers and the format in which psychotherapy was delivered by Austrian psychotherapists during different time points of the COVID-19 pandemic and to explore psychotherapists` experiences on pandemic-associated changes in their psychotherapeutic work as well as their wishes for support in their professional activities. Three cross-sectional online surveys were conducted between March 2020 and May 2022. The total number of participating psychotherapists was n = 1547 in 2020, n = 238 in 2021, and n = 510 in 2022. The number of patients treated was highest in 2022 and lowest at the beginning of the pandemic (p < 0.001). During the lockdown in 2020, only 25.0% of patients were treated in personal contact. This proportion increased in the following years, reaching 86.9% in 2022 (p < 0.001). After a substantial increase in the proportion of patients treated via the telephone and internet during the first lockdown, both proportions decreased during the pandemics’ second and third year (p < 0.001). However, a larger proportion of patients were treated via the internet in 2022 compared to pre-pandemic times (p < 0.001). Psychotherapists reported that the pandemic affected mainly the setting in which psychotherapy was provided (29.6%), the working conditions and workload (27.1%), as well as the demand for psychotherapy (26.9%). About one-third of psychotherapists expressed support wishes for their psychotherapeutic work. Results suggest that the pandemic went along with a partial shift in the provision of psychotherapy towards psychotherapy via the internet but not the telephone. The increase in patient numbers and psychotherapists` reports of increased workload suggest a rise in the demand for mental health care during and in the aftermath of the pandemic.

A previous study revealed that the majority of Austrian psychotherapists switched to remote settings during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The current study investigated whether this change in treatment format was maintained after one year of the COVID-19 pandemic. From 16 February until 2 April 2021, a total of 238 Austrian psychotherapists completed an online survey. They were asked about the number of patients currently treated in-person, via telephone and via the internet. Psychotherapists rated three different aspects of psychotherapy (ability to actively listen to patients, ability to understand what is going on in the patients and ability to support patients emotionally) for three different formats (in-person with facemasks, telephone and internet) separately. The results show that, after one year of the pandemic, the majority (78.4%) of patients were treated in-person (compared to 21.7% during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic; p < 0.001). This change in the treatment format was accompanied by a strong increase in the total number of patients treated by 77.2% on average (p < 0.001). Psychotherapists reported no differences between in-person psychotherapy with facemasks and psychotherapy via the internet with regard to the three investigated aspects of psychotherapy, while the surveyed aspects were rated less favorably for psychotherapy conducted via telephonic communication (p < 0.05). Further studies are needed to investigate the reasons why most psychotherapists switched back to the in-person format with the continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated measures to contain the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus required a change in treatment format from face-to-face to remote psychotherapy. This study investigated the changes experienced by Austrian therapists when switching to psychotherapy at a distance. A total of 217 therapists participated in an online survey on changes experienced when switching settings. The survey was open from 26 June until 3 September 2020. Several open questions were evaluated using qualitative content analysis. The results show that the setting at a distance was appreciated by the therapists as a possibility to continue therapy even during an exceptional situation. Moreover, remote therapy offered the respondents more flexibility in terms of space and time. Nevertheless, the therapists also reported challenges of remote therapy, such as limited sensory perceptions, technical problems and signs of fatigue. They also described differences in terms of the therapeutic interventions used. There was a great deal of ambivalence in the data regarding the intensity of sessions and the establishment and/or maintenance of a psychotherapeutic relationship. Overall, the study shows that remote psychotherapy seems to have been well accepted by Austrian psychotherapists in many settings and can offer benefits. Clinical studies are also necessary to investigate in which contexts and for which patient groups the remote setting is suitable and where it is potentially contraindicated.

Access to psychotherapy is still limited by various barriers, and little is known about the facilitating circumstances. This study aims to assess self-reported barriers and facilitators to psychotherapy utilisation in private practice and how these access factors relate to psychotherapy goals as formulated by patients. The dataset consists of 21 face-to-face semi-structured interviews with patients treated by psychotherapists in private practice in Austria. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis, including a frequency count of the number of codings to analyse relations between categories. A critical external barrier theme was unaffordable psychotherapy and confusion about how the Austrian funding system works. A negative experience with psychotherapy prior to the current one, such as not being understood and answered well enough by one’s therapist, was a frequently reported internal barrier. Individuals who faced more internal barriers and more external facilitators in seeking therapy, such as moral support from significant others and professionals, formulated less elaborate treatment goals. Although the study was carried out amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the pandemic played a minor role in patients’ self-reported barrier and facilitator themes.