The COVID-19 pandemic increased population levels of depression and anxiety, and infection control measures obliged services to provide psychological therapies remotely. Evidence for the routine provision of psychological therapy via telephone and video-conferencing is limited. This study compared therapy outcomes for 5360 clients in two London Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) services before and after homeworking produced a compete shift to remotely delivered therapy. Despite the psychological impacts of pandemic restrictions, and the use of a novel therapy modality in video-conferencing, recovery rates and net score change improved in both services, significantly in one. There was no significant worsening of outcomes for any demographic group or presenting disorder. The findings suggest that for those able to access it, therapy provided by telephone and video is a clinically effective option for IAPT services. Key learning aims (1) To assess the clinical effectiveness of delivering IAPT therapies remotely. (2) To gain insight into the impacts of remote therapy on different client groups, including ethnicity, gender, age and presenting problem. (3) To assess the impact of remote therapy on access to IAPT services.

Videoconferencing therapy (VT) has been an emerging medium of psychological therapy, and during the COVID-19 pandemic there has been substantial growth in its usage as a result of home working. However, there is a paucity of research into client and clinician perceptions of VT. This study sought to assess client and staff experiences of VT. This mixed methods study produced both quantitative and qualitative data. Seven clients who had previously received VT and 11 psychotherapists who had previously delivered VT were recruited from two NHS sites. Clients and psychotherapists took part in qualitative interviews which were analysed using thematic analysis. Quantitative surveys were developed based on themes generated from the interviews and were completed by 172 clients and 117 psychotherapists. These were analysed using simple percentages. VT often exceeded client and psychotherapist expectations and overall experiences of VT were generally positive, although there were mixed findings regarding the therapeutic alliance. Several barriers to VT were cited, such as IT issues, and challenges identified in conducting behavioural experiments, and potential exclusion of certain populations were also cited. The medium of VT was received well by both clients and clinicians, with advantages around convenience seemingly outweighing losses in quality of therapeutic relationship. Future research should focus on overcoming barriers to accessing VT in populations prone to digital exclusion. NHS services not currently employing VT may wish to reconsider their stance, expanding choice of therapy delivery and improving accessibility. Key learning aims (1) To gain insight into client and clinician experiences of VT during the COVID-19 pandemic. (2) To assess the acceptability and feasibility of VT within two NHS short-term psychological support services. (3) To identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of VT within two NHS short-term psychological support services.