ArticleClinical psychology & psychotherapy2022
Impact of COVID-19 social distancing measures on routine mental health care provision and treatment outcome for common mental disorders in the Netherlands.
Article in Clinical psychology & psychotherapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Web-Based Guided Self-Help vs Treatment as Usual for Binge-Eating Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Feasibility of online group schema therapy: A preliminary study with therapists in training for future application in borderline personality disorder.Internet interventions · 2026Article
- Changes in internalizing and externalizing problems in Dutch children and adolescents receiving outpatient youth care before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2025Article
- Cognitive behavioral therapy-enhanced through videoconferencing for night eating syndrome, binge-eating disorder and comorbid insomnia: a Case Report.Journal of eating disorders · 2024Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work of clinical psychologists in Austria: results of a mixed-methods study.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Impact of COVID-19 social distancing measures on routine mental health care provision and treatment outcome for common mental disorders in the Netherlands.Clinical psychology & psychotherapy · 2022Article
- One-Size-Fits-All Policies Are Unacceptable: A Sustainable Management and Decision-Making Model for Schools in the Post-COVID-19 Era.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Differential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care utilization related to common mental disorders in four European countries: A retrospective observational study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe uptake of digital interventions in mental health care (MHC) has been slow, as many therapists and patients believe that in-person contact is essential for establishing a good working relationship and good outcomes in treatment. The public health policies regarding social distancing during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced an abrupt transformation of MHC provisions for outpatients: Since mid-March 2020, nearly all in-person contact was replaced with videoconferencing. The COVID-19 crisis offered a unique opportunity to investigate whether MHC with videoconferencing yields inferior results as compared to in-person interventions.
methodIn a large urban MHC facility in the Netherlands, measurement-based care is routine practice. Outcome data are regularly collected to support shared decision making and monitor patient progress. For this study, pretest and post-test data were used to compare outcomes for three cohorts: treatments performed prior to, partially during and entirely during the COVID-19 lockdown. Outcomes were compared in two large data sets: Basic MHC (N = 1392) and Specialized MHC (N = 1040).
resultsTherapeutic outcomes appeared robust for COVID-19 conditions across the three cohorts: No differences in outcomes were found between treatments that were conducted during lockdown compared to in-person treatments prior to COVID-19, or treatments which started in-person, but needed to be continued by means of videoconferencing. DISCUSSION: Videoconferencing care during the COVID-19 pandemic had similar outcomes compared to traditional in-person care. These real-world results corroborate findings of previous randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses in which videoconferencing and in-person care has been directly compared in terms of clinical effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.