["Achieving closeness in video treatment despite distance"]. / "In Videobehandlungen trotz Distanz Nähe schaffen": Wie erlebten Psychotherapeuten die Durchführung von Videobehandlungen in Zeiten von COVID-19?

Background: As a result of the contact ban issued at the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in March 2020, psychotherapists provided significantly more video-based therapy (VBT) and most of them provided it the first time. To date, there is little research on how therapists experienced VBT during the pandemic and no studies are available that look at possible procedure-specific features. Objective: The aim was to analyze what subjective experiences therapists of different guideline procedures had with the implementation of VBT in times of the COVID 19 pandemic and what advantages and disadvantages they experienced. Methods: This was a mixed methods study with a cross-sectional online survey. In addition to quantitative data, seven open-ended questions were used to collect therapists' subjective experiences with conducting VBT and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The identified categories were subjected to a frequency analysis. Data from 174 medical or psychological psychotherapists were included in the analysis. Results: Particularly frequently mentioned advantages were flexibility of location and time, continuity of contact during pandemic periods and avoidance of risk of infection. The most commonly cited disadvantage was the lack of sensory input, facial expressions, gestures, eye contact, and nonverbal communication. The VBT was well-accepted by most, but not all, patients. Technical problems made the implementation difficult. Conclusion: For many therapists VBT remained a stopgap solution that was not designed to last; however, VBT could help to solve known care problems (e.g., underprovision in rural areas) beyond the pandemic period. The results of the study make an important contribution to weighing up the opportunities and risks of VBT for psychotherapeutic care and for keeping an eye on possible dangers and difficulties.

[Online psychotherapy in times of coronavirus disease 2019]. / Onlinepsychotherapie in Zeiten der Corona-Pandemie: Querschnittsbefragung deutscher Psychotherapeuten.

Theoretical background: As a reaction to the coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, in individual settings psychotherapy could be conducted online to an unlimited extent in Germany. The attitudes and experiences of psychotherapists with respect to online therapy (OT) have so far been generally poorly studied and particularly with a view to the situation during the pandemic. Objective: The aim of the study was to examine 1) the frequency of utilization of OT during the first lockdown, 2) the satisfaction with OT versus face-to-face therapy and 3) the technology acceptance experience overall and with respect to the guideline procedures. Material and methods: German psychotherapists licensed and in training, cognitive-behavioral (CB 45.6%), analytic (AP 14%), depth-psychological (DP 34.5%), systemic (SYS 5.8%), were invited to participate in an online survey on demographic and therapeutic data, use of OT, satisfaction with OT vs. face-to-face therapy (Zufriedenheitsfragebogen für Therapeuten, ZUF-THERA) and technology acceptance (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 Questionnaire, UTAUT). Results: The 174 participating psychotherapists (mean age = 44.73 years, SD ±â€¯12.79; female 81.6%) reported that the average proportion of OT in the total therapeutic activity during the lockdown was 43.09%, with significant differences between guideline procedures (DP, CB > AP). The satisfaction with OT proved to be significantly lower than with face-to-face therapy and did not differ between the procedures. Prior experience with OT was reported by 23.6% of therapists overall and was higher among those working systemically compared to CB or AP therapists. Therapists working in CB experienced more enjoyment with OT than those working in DP and AP as well as perceived a stronger social influence (e.g. through colleagues) in the use of OT than therapists working in DP. Conclusion: The frequency of use of OT soared during the first lockdown (March-May 2020, 43% in comparison to the former limit covered by health insurances of 20%). In principle, therapists were highly satisfied with OT but significantly lower than with face-to-face therapy. Further studies analyzing the reasons for this in detail are urgently recommended.