Blog

Stoll, J., Muller, J.A., Trachsel, M. (2020). Ethical issues in online psychotherapy: A narrative review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 993. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00993

There is emerging evidence that videoconference delivered psychotherapy is as effective as face to face therapy. Providing psychotherapy by telecommunication technologies might be synchronous (real time) or asynchronous (email, chat, internet-based) in nature. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, many psychotherapists have moved to telehealth methods due to necessity rather than by choice. Based on previous survey findings, psychotherapists’ attitudes, and legal-ethical barriers have hampered a wider use of video conferencing methods for delivering psychological interventions. In this narrative review, Stoll and colleagues conduct a broad-based summary of 249 studies touching on the main ethical arguments for and against the provision of online psychotherapy. The top five ethical arguments in favor of online psychotherapy include the following. (1) Increased access and availability: online psychotherapy can improve access to health care services for those living in rural and remote areas. (2) Enhanced communication: online therapy is as effective as face to face therapy and allows for creative approaches to delivering therapy including integrating online materials, websites, and videos into therapy sessions. (3) Client characteristics: some clients who have problems with agoraphobia and severe anxiety may find online therapy a useful first step in treatment. (4) Convenience: research indicates that both patients and therapists judge online therapy to be convenient and comfortable. (5) Economic advantages: online therapy might be more cost-efficient due to reduced overhead and travel costs for therapists and clients. The top five ethical arguments against online psychotherapy include the following. (1) Privacy and confidentiality: related to the use of unsecured websites or unencrypted communication tools. (2) Therapist competence: some therapists may not have technology related competencies including specific ethical and legal requirements. (3) Communication issues: the absence of non-verbal cues may reduce the information that therapists have to work with in a session. (4) Research gaps: there is insufficient research to support online therapy, including no knowledge about which clients can benefit, and the impact on therapeutic processes. (5) Emergency issues: ethical issues may arise as to how to manage emergencies or crises of patients who are in different locations.

Practice Implications

The practice of videoconference delivered psychotherapy is here to stay and will be more widespread even after the pandemic. Therapists can take comfort in the many ethical reasons to provide such services, including reaching patients who might not otherwise have access to therapy or who might not be comfortable seeking out face to face therapy. Nevertheless, there are a number of ethical concenrs about the use of online therapy, not the least of which includes questions about privacy and confidentiality and therapist competence. Psychotherapists should follow practice guidelines of their regulatory colleges when considering online therapy.

Dickeson, E., Roberts, R., & Smout, M.F. (2020). Predicting boundary violation propensity among mental health professionals. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Online First Publication: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2465.

Boundaries of the therapeutic relationship define the role and limits of therapist behaviors, and the limits of their relationship with clients. Violations of therapy boundaries might include sexual contact, which by some estimates occurs in 0.5% to 8.6% of therapists. Other boundary violations might include a broader range of behaviors such as therapists initiating hugs, forming a social relationship with a client, flirting, and consuming alcohol with a client. A number of years ago, Gabbard developed a typology of practitioners who committed boundary violations that included: the predatory therapist, the masochistic therapist, and the lovesick therapist. Despite the widespread use of this typology, there was little research on its validity or utility. Dickeson and colleagues conducted a survey of 275 Australian practitioners (psychologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, and social workers, 73% women) about their behaviors related to professional boundaries and also personality traits. The goal was to evaluate if therapist variables suggested by Gabbard were related to the likelihood of crossing a professional boundary. Over 30% of the therapists in their sample reported some kind of boundary violation with clients, with 0.7% indicating they had sex with a client. Male gender (r = .147–.255), experiential avoidance (r = .144–.230), narcissistic grandiosity (r = .334–.402), narcissistic vulnerability (r = .258–.331), and impulsivity (r = .196–.262) were the most consistent predictors of some propensity to commit a boundary violation among therapists. There was no evidence that age or working in a solo practice setting were related to propensity to professional boundary violations.

Practice Implications

Gabbard’s typology for therapists who engage in boundary violations were supported to some extent. The predatory therapist type was supported by findings related to narcissistic grandiosity and impulsivity. Such therapists may seek personal gratification by exploiting clients. There was also some evidence for the masochistic therapist type as seen by significant correlations with narcissistic vulnerability and experiential avoidance. Such practitioners might extend themselves beyond the limits of professional conduct in a misguided belief that only they can help the client. There is a general consensus in the profession that boundary violations are detrimental to clients. This research suggests that therapists with narcissistic issues might be more likely to transgress professional boundaries. Personal therapy, close supervision, and ongoing professional consultation may be helpful for therapists who feel that they at risk of a professional boundary transgression.

Muir, H. J., Coyne, A. E., Morrison, N. R., Boswell, J. F., & Constantino, M. J. (2019). Ethical implications of routine outcomes monitoring for patients, psychotherapists, and mental health care systems. Psychotherapy, 56(4), 459–469.

On average, psychotherapy is effective for a variety of disorders, however about two thirds of patients in regular clinical practice do not improve or recover. Even more problematic is the 5% to 10% of patients who get worse during psychotherapy. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that psychotherapists are not capable of identifying patients who get worse, and therapists regularly over-estimate their effectiveness. This is not surprising because the information therapists need to make these determinations about patients is complex. Therapists, like most humans, have a difficult time integrating complex information to make nuanced decisions about how to act. Therapists need help in the form of reliable and accurate information to make complex clinical decisions. One approach to addressing these concerns is to use routine outcome monitoring (ROM), which involves assessing patient progress by reliable means as patients progress through therapy. ROM also involves feeding that information back to therapists on a regular basis so that they can make the best determinations. In this narrative review, Muir and colleagues discuss the ethical implications of the use of ROM given the research support. The research indicates that ROM feedback leads better outcomes for patients than treatment as usual, and most importantly ROM feedback to therapists reduces patient deterioration in half. Qualitative research also finds that patients generally view ROM feedback as valuable, and patients prefer to use it. Given these findings, implementing ROM represents one way to help therapists to meet ethical aspirations of beneficence, and to fulfill ethical obligations of forestalling harm. The research also indicates that therapists differ in their outcomes. One large study in clinical practices indicated that above average therapists were two times more effective than other clinicians. Individual psychotherapists may not be aware of their effectiveness and so do not know if they need more training or need to focus on certain types of patients for whom they are particularly effective. Ethically, ROM may be one means by which therapists can assess the boundaries of and areas competence, and those areas for which they may need more training and supervision.

Practice Implications

ROM may be a means for psychotherapists to practice ethically by knowing their patients better and by knowing themselves better. Basing one’s perception of one’s own competence fulfills the ethical requirement to ground clinical practice within the scientific knowledge of the field. Consistent and reliable information may allow therapists to know their own general effectiveness, and also to know for which patients they are more or less effective. This might result in therapists focusing their practices on those patient problems for which they are effective, or to seek further training and supervision in those areas in which they can improve.

Effectiveness and Adherence of Telephone-Administered Psychotherapy

Castro, A., Gili, M., Ricci-Cagello, I., Roca, M., Gilbody, S., Perez-Ara, A., Segui, A., & McMillan, D. (2020). Effectiveness and adherence of telephone-administered psychotherapy for depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 260, 514-526.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in psychotherapy providers moving to online and telephone-delivered interventions. But questions remain about the efficacy of delivering psychotherapy in these formats to patients with depression. Depression is highly prevalent as it affects about 320 million people around the world and causes serious disability and lowered quality of life. Psychotherapy is effective in treating depression, however there are significant barriers to people accessing face-to-face psychotherapy including cost, stigma, distance, and disability. Telephone-delivered psychotherapy may minimize these barriers. One potential question that may arise is whether patients will adhere to telephone-delivered psychotherapy. That is, will patients find telephone sessions acceptable as indicted by the rate of starting therapy and of attending sessions? In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Castro and colleagues evaluated whether telephone-delivered psychotherapy for depression is as effective as other active treatments and more effective than no-treatment. The authors also examined the level of adherence/acceptability to telephone administered treatment, determined by the percent of scheduled sessions actually attended by a patient. The sample of studies was small such the authors only found a total of 11 direct comparison randomized controlled trials. These trials represented almost 1400 patients. The only treatment tested in these trials were CBT-oriented. Four studies found that telephone-delivered therapy produced significantly larger reductions in depressive symptoms when compared to no treatment controls (mean SMD = -0.48; 95% CI: -0.82 to -0.14). In four other studies telephone-administered therapy was just as effective as an active control (e.g., medication or self-help). The weighted average percentage of scheduled telephone sessions that patients attended was 73%, and the percent of patients who started telephone therapy after the initial referral was about 90%. These percentages indicating adherence and acceptability are similar to findings reported from individual psychotherapy studies.

Practice Implications

There are few randomized controlled trials that assess the efficacy of telephone-administered psychotherapy, and these studies were limited to only one type of intervention. However, the findings from this meta-analysis suggested that telephone-delivered psychotherapy may be efficacious and as effective as some other active treatments. Further, telephone therapy may be acceptable to patients in that they start and attend sessions at a rate similar to face-to-face therapy. These preliminary findings provide clinicians who provide telephone psychotherapy during this period of physical distancing due to COVID-19 with some evidence for the utility of telephone delivered treatment.

Predicting Which Psychotherapists Will Adopt Telepsychology

Pierce, B. S., Perrin, P. B., & McDonald, S. D. (2020). Demographic, organizational, and clinical practice predictors of U.S. psychologists’ use of telepsychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 51(2), 184–193.

Even prior to COVID-19, psychologists and psychotherapists were examining the use of telepsychology (telephone delivered psychotherapy and assessment). The interest arose from efforts to increase accessibility to psychological services for clients in rural and remote areas, and also for those for whom travelling to an urban centre was a significant barrier due to disability. However, there are barriers to psychotherapists’ use of telepsychology caused by: differing state and provincial laws and requirements, limits to working across state and provincial jurisdictions, issues related to insurance reimbursement, and concern that telepsychology and video conferencing platforms may not meet Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) or Personal Health Information Privacy and Access (PHIPA) requirements for confidentiality and privacy. In a previous study, close to 80% of psychologists felt that telepsychology could be effective, but 42% viewed telepsychology as less effective than face-to-face therapy, and 75% indicated that they would not likely refer to someone for telepsychology services. In this large survey of almost 1800 psychologists who practiced psychotherapy, Pierce and colleagues were interested in demographic, organizational, and clinical factors that predicted telepsychology-use by clinicians. The participants were 8.74 times more likely to use telepsychology if they worked in organizations that had policies supporting telepsychology-use compared to those who worked in organizations without such policies (p < .001). Nevertheless, psychologists in private practices were 2.86 times more likely to use telepsychology than those who worked in institutions. Also, psychologists who received training in telepsychology were 2.25 times more likely to use telepsychology than those who did not receive any training (p = .002). In terms of clinical practice areas, those who worked in sports performance, coaching, addictions, and parenting were more likely to use telepsychology. On the other hand, those who provided testing and evaluations were less likely to use telepsychology, likely because of practical limitations to psychometric testing online. Age and gender were not related to telepsychology use.

Practice Implications

Psychologists and psychotherapists who want to increase their comfort and satisfaction in working with telepsychology should consider getting professional development training and continuing education. In one study, over two thirds or psychologists perceived that they did not have sufficient training to use telepsychology. Organizations who want to encourage telepsychology should invest in training and provide clear policy guidelines to support professionals. The notion that older clinicians would be less likely to use telepsychology was not born out by these findings.

Once-Weekly or Twice-Weekly Sessions of Psychotherapy?

Bruijniks, S., Lemmens, L., Hollon, S.D., Peeters, F.P., ….Huibers, M.J. (2020). The effects of once- versus twice-weekly sessions on psychotherapy outcomes in depressed patients. The British Journal of Psychiatry, doi: 10.1192/bjp.2019.265. [Epub ahead of print].

Some research has suggested that the number of sessions per week, not the total number of sessions received, is correlated with patient outcomes. It is possible that higher session frequency per week might lead clients to better recall the content of sessions, which in turn may lead to better treatment outcomes. Or perhaps, higher frequency of sessions might lead to a better therapeutic alliance and higher client motivation thus leading to better outcomes. Although previous research has suggested that more sessions per week is better, no study has ever directly assessed this issue until now. Bruijniks and colleagues conducted a large randomized controlled trial of 200 adults with depression seen across nine specialized clinics in the Netherlands. Researchers randomly assigned clients to receive either cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) or interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for a maximum of 20 sessions. Half of the clients in either type of therapy received the 20 sessions on a twice a week basis, and half of clients in each type of therapy received the 20 sessions on a once a week basis. The therapies were manualized, therapists were trained and supervised, and clients were carefully selected to meet criteria for depression. More patients dropped out of weekly (31%) compared to twice weekly (17%) therapy. There were no differences between CBT and IPT in depression outcomes. However, there was a significant effect of session frequency on patient outcomes in favor of twice weekly sessions (d = 0.55). Using a strict criteria of “recovery” from depression at 6 months post treatment, 19.6% of patients receiving once weekly therapy “recovered” compared to 29.5% of patients receiving twice weekly therapy.

Practice Implications

This large multi-site study has intriguing implications for practice. More frequent sessions per week may result in significantly better patient outcomes regardless of the type of therapy offered. Not surprisingly, IPT and CBT were equally effective. However, their effectiveness was limited in that only between 20% to 30% of patients recovered from depression. This finding is similar to the results previous trials, and speaks to the limitations of time-limited manual-based therapies for depression. Nevertheless, it appears that more frequent therapy per week may be a better option for some clients.