The impact of technology on therapeutic alliance and engagement in psychotherapy: The therapist's perspective

Abstract

Objective In this article, we investigate therapist views on their experiences using a technological adjunct (goACT) to traditional, face‐to‐face psychotherapy. goACT is a web‐based mobile interactive software application that facilitates an interactive platform, allowing therapists to connect with their clients between face‐to‐face psychotherapy sessions. Method Participants were six provisional psychologists and seven patients. Data were collected at two post‐therapy focus groups in order to qualitatively understand therapist experience of goACT as a therapy adjunct. Data were analysed utilising thematic analysis. Results Four main themes emerged: (1) “discretional use of goACT” linked to therapist preferences and client suitability; (2) “therapist concerns” linked to boundaries, workload, technological glitches, and therapeutic risks; (3) “goACT expands the parameters of therapy” through increased opportunities to provide care and connection with patients and increased access to the process of therapy; and (4) “goACT enhances therapy” through reciprocal responsibility and guided empowerment. Therapists in this study were more open to the use of technology in therapy than has been reported in previous research and did not find that it affected their workload. Conclusion Therapists indicated that when aligned to the specific needs of individual patients, an advanced mobile and web‐based interactive software application (goACT) has the potential to enhance engagement, rapport, and patient empowerment in face‐to‐face psychotherapy.

Measuring therapists' attitudes toward integration of technology in psychotherapy and predicting their use of technology

“…One important avenue for future research is to explore how the degree of agreement between psychotherapist's and client's attitudes toward technology affects the therapeutic process. Psychotherapists' use of technology seems to depend on their preferences (Richards, Simpson, Bastiampillai, Pietrabissa & Castelnuovo, 2018). Also, it has been shown that psychotherapists rated the therapeutic alliance lower when the same session was displayed as delivered via technology (Rees & Stone, 2005).…”

Utilizing digital tools to support face-to-face care: Examining uptake within the practices of Australian Psychologists

“…The application of technology in face-to-face mental health care continues to be contentious (Feijt, de Kort, Bongers, & IJsselsteljn, 2018;Perle, Langsam, & Nierenberg, 2011;Richards, Simpson, Bastiampillai, Pietrabissa, & Castelnuovo, 2016). Present-day face-to-face therapy, operating in a similar format to Sigmund Freud's foundational practice, is based at its core upon direct communication and interaction between the therapist and client in a private setting.…”

Wearable devices as adjuncts in the treatment of anxiety‐related symptoms: A narrative review of five device modalities and implications for clinical practice.

“…Evidence-based interventions could be iatrogenic if they are poorly implemented technologically, leading to no improvement and thereby reinforcing treatment avoidance (Torous, Levin, Ahern, & Oser, 2017). Concerns have also been expressed about whether the use of technology may compromise the therapeutic alliance, although there is some evidence for the opposite, at least where technology is used appropriately according to client preferences (Richards, Simpson, Bastiampillai, Pietrabissa, & Castelnuovo, 2016). Furthermore, the use of mHealth technologies may be unsuited to clients who are at significant safety risk, and may cause unnecessary complications in complex therapeutic cases (Torous & Roberts, 2017).…”