ArticleJMIR formative research2024
Exploring Psychotherapists' Attitudes on Internet- and Mobile-Based Interventions in Germany: Thematic Analysis.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives and/or experiences of digital mental health tools in clinical practice: a systematic review and thematic synthesis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Prescriber's Preferences for Digital Health Applications in Mental Health Care: Cross-Sectional Best-Worst Scaling Study of General Practitioners and Psychotherapists in Germany.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Navigating the Digital Landscape for Potential Use of Mental Health Apps in Clinical Practice: Scoping Review.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Perspectives on digital therapeutic prescribing: a qualitative study among German psychological psychotherapists.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Therapist characteristics and acceptance of internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy: A national cross-sectional survey using the technology acceptance model after ten years of iCBT in Norway.Internet interventions · 2025Article
- Mobile-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Health Care Workers' Mental Health in Ecuador: Quasi-Experimental Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Attitudes of Mental Health Professionals Towards the Use of Routine Outcome Monitoring in Psychotherapeutic Inpatient Settings: A Thematic Analysis.Administration and policy in mental health · 2025Article
- Blended Mobile-Based Interventions With Integrated Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy for Anxiety Disorders: Thematic Analysis of Patient Perspectives.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
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
backgroundIn recent years, internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) have become increasingly relevant in mental health care and have sparked societal debates. Psychotherapists' perspectives are essential for identifying potential opportunities for improvement, facilitating conditions, and barriers to the implementation of these interventions.
objectiveThis study aims to explore psychotherapists' perspectives on opportunities for improvement, facilitating conditions, and barriers to using IMIs.
methodsThe study used a qualitative research design, utilizing open-ended items in a cross-sectional survey. A total of 350 psychotherapists were asked to provide their written opinions on various aspects of IMIs. Thematic analysis was conducted to analyze the data and identify core themes.
resultsThe analysis revealed 11 core themes related to the use of IMIs, which were categorized into 4 superordinate categories: "Applicability," "Treatment Resources," "Technology," and "Perceived Risks and Barriers." While many psychotherapists viewed IMIs as a valuable support for conventional psychotherapy, they expressed skepticism about using IMIs as a substitute. Several factors were perceived as hindrances to the applicability of IMIs in clinical practice, including technological issues, subjective concerns about potential data protection risks, a lack of individualization due to the manualized nature of most IMIs, and the high time and financial costs for both psychotherapists and patients. They expressed a desire for easily accessible information on evidence and programs to reduce the time and effort required for training and advocated for this information to be integrated into the conceptualization of new IMIs.
conclusionsThe findings of this study emphasize the importance of considering psychotherapists' attitudes in the development, evaluation, and implementation of IMIs. This study revealed that psychotherapists recognized both the opportunities and risks associated with the use of IMIs, with most agreeing that IMIs serve as a tool to support traditional psychotherapy rather than as a substitute for it. Furthermore, it is essential to involve psychotherapists in discussions about IMIs specifically, as well as in the development of new methodologies in psychotherapy more broadly. Overall, this study can advance the use of IMIs in mental health care and contribute to the ongoing societal debate surrounding these interventions.
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.