A Model of Engagement Promotion in a Professionally Facilitated Online Intervention for Couples Affected by Breast Cancer

Abstract

Professionally facilitated web-based interventions for couples affected by an illness such as cancer are growing in popularity. Attrition rates for such online programs, however, are substantially higher than what is observed in face-to-face therapeutic contexts, and lower levels of participant engagement are associated with poorer outcomes. In the present investigation, a task analysis was employed to develop a model of engagement promotion in an online intervention for couples affected by breast cancer called "Couplelinks." Results indicated that facilitators utilized a variety of meta-processes, such as humanizing the technology, and associated "eBehaviors," to maintain three relationships involved in promoting online engagement: (a) between the facilitator and couple; (b) between the intervention and couple; and (c) between the partners within the couple.

Systemic teletherapists' meaningful experiences during the first months of the coronavirus pandemic

“…Some participants indicated that their meaningful experiences of providing systemic teletherapy were similar to conducting therapy face to face. One of Val's most meaningful experiences was “seeing couples benefit from the skills and tools they learn, watching them come closer together and learning how to love each other well, and seeing them have progressed towards their goals.” This aligns with previous telehealth research (Ianakieva et al, 2016).…”

“…One of Val's most meaningful experiences was "seeing couples benefit from the skills and tools they learn, watching them come closer together and learning how to love each other well, and seeing them have progressed towards their goals." This aligns with previous telehealth research (Ianakieva et al, 2016).…”

“…In March 2020, the coronavirus pandemic facilitated the need for many therapists to make a quick transition to teletherapy. Previously, teletherapy was used to treat family systems, but barriers such as a lack of training, discomfort with technology, and ethical considerations prevented many clinicians from treating clients via digital platforms (Anderson et al, 2017; Bischoff, 2004; Comer et al, 2017; Dausch & Saliman, 2009; Farero et al, 2015; Hertlein et al, 2014; Hertlein et al, 2014; Ianakieva et al, 2016; Pickens et al, 2020; Wrape & McGinn, 2019). At the beginning of the pandemic, many places in the United States determined that therapists were essential workers and permitted in‐person clinical services.…”

“…Best practices for relational telehealth include the need for therapists to have sufficient technology, follow applicable licensure laws and ethical codes, verify client identity, and establish crisis interventions plans for remote clients (Caldwell et al, 2017; Pennington et al, 2017; Wrape & McGinn, 2019). Ianakieva et al, (2016) developed a model to help clinicians engage couples via telehealth. They recommended humanizing technology, taking a firm yet upbeat approach when introducing telehealth, and naming the differences between teletherapy and in‐person sessions.…”

“…They recommended humanizing technology, taking a firm yet upbeat approach when introducing telehealth, and naming the differences between teletherapy and in‐person sessions. Ianakieva et al, (2016) and Luxton et al, (2016) noted that many of relational teletherapy skills are similar to techniques used in face‐to‐face sessions. However, technology‐mediated sessions have specific challenges such as fitting multiple clients in camera view, the inability to hear multiple clients speaking simultaneously when using separate devices, and the limited use or observation of body language (Wrape & McGinn, 2019).…”