Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32525484›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2020

Therapeutic Alliance in Technology-Based Interventions for the Treatment of Depression: Systematic Review.

Eileen Wehmann, Moritz Köhnen, Martin Härter, Sarah Liebherz

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evidence for Bidirectional, Cross-Lagged Associations Between Alliance and Psychological Distress in an Unguided Mobile-Health Intervention.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Eileen WehmannDepartment of Medical Psychology, Center for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8543-6265
Moritz KöhnenDepartment of Medical Psychology, Center for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6444-6034
Martin HärterDepartment of Medical Psychology, Center for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7443-9890
Sarah LiebherzDepartment of Medical Psychology, Center for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6091-0992

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is growing evidence that technology-based interventions (TBIs) are effective for the treatment of depression. As TBIs are gaining acceptance, a question arises whether good therapeutic alliance, considered a key aspect of psychotherapy, can be established without or with minimal face-to-face contact or rather changes if blended concepts are applied. While therapeutic alliance has been studied extensively in the context of face-to-face therapy, only few studies have reviewed evidence on alliance ratings in TBIs.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to examine therapeutic alliance in technology-based psychological interventions for the treatment of depression.

methodsWe searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL, clinical trial registers, and sources of grey literature for randomized controlled trials on TBIs in the treatment of adults with unipolar depression. All publications were selected according to prespecified criteria. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers.

resultsA total of eight out of 98 studies (9.5%) included in the review on TBIs for depression considered therapeutic alliance as part of their evaluation. The available data covered eight different treatment conditions, including four stand-alone treatments (face-to-face psychotherapy, email, telephone, and internet program) and four combined treatments (face-to-face psychotherapy plus a smartphone app and an internet program combined with face-to-face psychotherapy, treatment as usual, or email/telephone). On average, patients rated the alliance positively across all groups. Importantly, no relevant group differences regarding therapeutic alliance sum scores were found in any of the studies. Five studies investigated the relationship between patients' alliance ratings and treatment outcome, revealing mixed results.

conclusionsOur results suggest that it is possible to establish a positive therapeutic alliance across a variety of different TBIs for depression, but this is based on a small number of studies. Future research needs to determine on what basis therapeutic alliance is formed in settings that do not allow for additional nonverbal cues, perhaps with adapted instruments to measure therapeutic alliance.

trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42016050413; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42016050413). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028042.

Indexed as

Therapeutic AllianceAdultDepressionFemaleHumansMaleTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalTreatment Outcomedepressiontechnology-based interventiontherapeutic alliancetreatment

Identifiers

PMID32525484
PMCPMC7317632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.