Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32635422›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Provision of Psychotherapy during the COVID-19 Pandemic among Czech, German and Slovak Psychotherapists.

Elke Humer, Christoph Pieh, Martin Kuska, Antonia Barke, Bettina K Doering, Katharina Gossmann, Radek Trnka, Zdenek Meier, Natalia Kascakova, Peter Tavel and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Elke HumerDepartment for Psychotherapy and Biopsychosocial Health, Danube University Krems, 3500 Krems, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-9776-0353
Christoph PiehDepartment for Psychotherapy and Biopsychosocial Health, Danube University Krems, 3500 Krems, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-2708-303X
Martin KuskaDepartment for Psychotherapy and Biopsychosocial Health, Danube University Krems, 3500 Krems, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-1294-2623
Antonia BarkeClinical and Biological Psychology, Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, 85072 Eichstätt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6863-3213
Bettina K DoeringClinical and Biological Psychology, Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, 85072 Eichstätt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0199-8362
Katharina GossmannClinical and Biological Psychology, Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, 85072 Eichstätt, Germany.
Radek TrnkaScience and Research Department, Prague College of Psychosocial Studies, 14900 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-3731-468X
Zdenek MeierOlomouc University Social Health Institute (OUSHI), Palacky University Olomouc, 77111 Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Natalia KascakovaOlomouc University Social Health Institute (OUSHI), Palacky University Olomouc, 77111 Olomouc, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-2021-2847
Peter TavelOlomouc University Social Health Institute (OUSHI), Palacky University Olomouc, 77111 Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Thomas ProbstDepartment for Psychotherapy and Biopsychosocial Health, Danube University Krems, 3500 Krems, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-6113-2133
Universität für Weiterbildung Krems · ATCatholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt · DEPalacký University Olomouc · CZPrague College of Psychosocial Studies · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychotherapists around the world are facing an unprecedented situation with the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). To combat the rapid spread of the virus, direct contact with others has to be avoided when possible. Therefore, remote psychotherapy provides a valuable option to continue mental health care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The present study investigated the fear of psychotherapists to become infected with COVID-19 during psychotherapy in personal contact and assessed how the provision of psychotherapy changed due to the COVID-19 situation and whether there were differences with regard to country and gender. Psychotherapists from three European countries: Czech Republic (CZ,

Indexed as

AdultBetacoronavirusCoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Czech RepublicFearFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsPneumonia, ViralPsychotherapySARS-CoV-2COVID-19fear of infectionpsychotherapypublic healthremote psychotherapy

Identifiers

PMID32635422
PMCPMC7370023
OpenAlexW3040224945

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.