Videoconferencing psychotherapy (VCP)-the remote delivery of psychotherapy via secure video link-is an innovative way of delivering psychotherapy, which has the potential to overcome many of the regularly cited barriers to accessing psychological treatment. However, some debate exists as to whether an adequate working alliance can be formed between therapist and client, when therapy is delivered through such a medium. The presented article is a systematic literature review and two meta-analyses aimed at answering the questions: Is working alliance actually poorer in VCP? And is outcome equivalence possible between VCP and face-to-face delivery? Twelve studies were identified which met inclusion/exclusion criteria, all of which demonstrated good working alliance and outcome for VCP. Meta-analyses showed that working alliance in VCP was inferior to face-to-face delivery (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.67, 0.07], p = 0.11; with the lower bound of the CI extending beyond the noninferiority margin [-0.50]), but that target symptom reduction was noninferior (SMD = -0.03; 95% CI [-0.45, 0.40], p = 0.90; CI within the noninferiority margin [0.50]). These results are discussed and directions for future research recommended.

Background The prevalence of mental health disorders continues to rise, with almost 4% of the world population having an anxiety disorder and almost 3.5% having depression in 2017. Despite the high prevalence, only one-third of people with depression or anxiety receive treatment. Over the last decade, the use of digital health interventions (DHIs) has risen rapidly as a means of accessing mental health care and continues to increase. Although there is evidence supporting the effectiveness of DHIs for the treatment of mental health conditions, little is known about what aspects are valued by users and how they might be improved. Objective This systematic review aimed to identify, appraise, and synthesize the qualitative literature available on service users’ views and experiences regarding the acceptability and usability of DHIs for depression, anxiety, and somatoform disorders. Methods A systematic search strategy was developed, and searches were run in 7 electronic databases. Qualitative and mixed methods studies published in English were included. A meta-synthesis was used to interpret and synthesize the findings from the included studies. Results A total of 24 studies were included in the meta-synthesis, and 3 key themes emerged with descriptive subthemes. The 3 key themes were initial motivations and approaches to DHIs, personalization of treatment, and the value of receiving personal support in DHIs. The meta-synthesis suggests that participants’ initial beliefs about DHIs can have an important effect on their engagement with these types of interventions. Personal support was valued very highly as a major component of the success of DHIs. The main reason for this was the way it enabled individual personalization of care. Conclusions Findings from the systematic review have implications for the design of future DHIs to improve uptake, retention, and outcomes in DHIs for depression, anxiety, and somatoform disorders. DHIs need to be personalized to the specific needs of the individual. Future research should explore whether the findings could be generalized to other health conditions.

Background: Most frequent attendance in primary care is temporary, but persistent frequent attendance is expensive and may be suitable for psychological intervention. To plan appropriate intervention and service delivery, there is a need for research involving standardised psychiatric interviews with assessment of physical health and health status.

BackgroundIt is challenging to engage repeat users of unscheduled healthcare with severe health anxiety in psychological help and high service costs are incurred. We investigated whether clinical and economic outcomes were improved by offering remote cognitive behaviour therapy (RCBT) using videoconferencing or telephone compared to treatment as usual (TAU).MethodsA single-blind, parallel group, multicentre randomised controlled trial was undertaken in primary and general hospital care. Participants were aged ≥18 years with ≥2 unscheduled healthcare contacts within 12 months and scored >18 on the Health Anxiety Inventory. Randomisation to RCBT or TAU was stratified by site, with allocation conveyed to a trial administrator, research assessors masked to outcome. Data were collected at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The primary outcome was change in HAI score from baseline to six months on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary outcomes were generalised anxiety, depression, physical symptoms, function and overall health. Health economics analysis was conducted from a health service and societal perspective.ResultsOf the 524 patients who were referred and assessed for trial eligibility, 470 were eligible and 156 (33%) were recruited; 78 were randomised to TAU and 78 to RCBT. Compared to TAU, RCBT significantly reduced health anxiety at six months, maintained to 9 and 12 months (mean change difference HAI –2.81; 95% CI –5.11 to –0.50; P = 0.017). Generalised anxiety, depression and overall health was significantly improved at 12 months, but there was no significant change in physical symptoms or function. RCBT was strictly dominant with a net monetary benefit of £3,164 per participant at a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000. No treatment-related adverse events were reported in either group.ConclusionsRCBT may reduce health anxiety, general anxiety and depression and improve overall health, with considerable reductions in health and informal care costs in repeat users of unscheduled care with severe health anxiety who have previously been difficult to engage in psychological treatment. RCBT may be an easy-to-implement intervention to improve clinical outcome and save costs in one group of repeat users of unscheduled care.Trial registrationThe trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 19 Nov 2014 with reference number NCT02298036Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-019-1253-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.