[Online psychotherapy in times of coronavirus disease 2019].

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 ( Results: The 174 participating psychotherapists (mean age = 44.73 years, SD ± 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.