Internet‐based psychological therapies: A qualitative study of National Health Service commissioners and managers views

Abstract

Objectives. To explore in-depth the views on Internet-based psychological therapies and their implementation from the perspective of National Health Service (NHS) commissioners and managers.Design. Qualitative interview study. Method.Ten NHS commissioners and managers participated in a semi-structured, coproduced interview. Each transcribed interview was double-coded and thematically analysed using The Framework Method. Results. Interviews generated three main themes. (1) Capacity issues across psychological therapy services create barriers to face-to-face therapies, and Internet-based interventions offer a solution. (2) Despite reservations, there is growing acceptance of Internet-based therapies. Different ways of connecting with patients are required, and Internet-based treatments are accessible and empowering treatment options, with guided self-help (GSH) preferred. Internet-based interventions may however exclude some individuals and be a threat to the therapeutic relationship between patient and practitioner. (3) Successful roll-out of Internet-based interventions would be facilitated by a strong empirical-or practice-based evidence, a national coordinated approach and timely training and supervision. Barriers to the roll-out include digital intervention set-up costs and delays due to NHS inflexibility.Conclusions. The study highlights factors influencing access to Internet-based therapies, important given the rapid evolution of e-therapies, and particularly timely given increasing use of remote therapies due to COVID-19 restrictions. Interviewees were open to Internet-based approaches, particularly GSH interventions, so long as they do notThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

User experience reevaluation and diffusion of technology in the context of compulsory usage illustrated by the example of telepsychotherapy—a literature review

“…Out of the three qualitative studies, one each took place within these three periods. The study by Simon et al 11 conveniently started two months prior to the pandemic situation but continued until June 2020. Two of the mixed-methods approaches finished data collection by May 2020 and one by July 2020.…”

“…One recalls an earlier attempt to introduce telepsychotherapy at her facility, which failed due to such concerns. 11 The staff didn’t want it to succeed and it didn’t succeed. Now, we’re talking about you know, telephone assessments are fantastic, we’ve been able to keep the service going, we must do more of these.…”

“…This is somewhat surprising as only 22.2% considered a lack of it to be a barrier. Selected items named regarding this aspect are supervision, 11 , 15 available contact persons, 25 assistance with administrative processes, 12 supportive policies, 9 and a general culture promoting digital health. 11 Four studies found a demand for stronger evidence of the efficacy of telepsychotherapy.…”

“…Selected items named regarding this aspect are supervision, 11 , 15 available contact persons, 25 assistance with administrative processes, 12 supportive policies, 9 and a general culture promoting digital health. 11 Four studies found a demand for stronger evidence of the efficacy of telepsychotherapy. Despite the large body of studies demonstrating the feasibility and effectiveness of remote sessions in different cases, some concerns remain, especially regarding patients suffering from suicidal thoughts or serious mental health disorders.…”

Effectiveness of the internet-based Unified Protocol transdiagnostic intervention for the treatment of depression, anxiety and related disorders in a primary care setting: a randomized controlled trial

“…This is particularly the case in countries that use low-intensity interventions and a stepped-care approach as part of their public health provision, e.g. [ 11 ].…”