ArticleCureus2024
Understanding Therapeutic Experience: A Qualitative Evaluation of Virtual and In-Person Treatment.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Acuity, Diagnosis, and Community Factors in Virtual and In-Person Treatment: Qualitative Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction Following the COVID-19 pandemic, there was adoption of virtual psychotherapy. There are a number of benefits and drawbacks to telehealth video conferencing that are experienced by both clients and clinicians. The current qualitative study sought to outline the advantages and disadvantages that clients and clinicians have personally experienced in virtual versus in-person therapy in an effort to identify the reasons for which one medium may be preferred over another. Methods The research was conducted from March 20, 2023, to April 3, 2023. The interviews with 32 individuals (14 clients and 18 clinicians) took place via Zoom video conferencing. Thematic analysis of the empirical material was conducted until fit and significance were met. Application of empirical principles of qualitative research was complete when categories were saturated, and no new themes had emerged. Results Results indicated that virtual care is appreciated for its convenience and ease, which allows clients to attend sessions even when physical barriers limit them (i.e., sickness, vacation, and between meetings or classes). In terms of maximizing the therapeutic process, this study found that in-person care has a number of benefits that are weakened or diminished when one switches to a virtual setting. Being in-person was reported to have a significant therapeutic impact in terms of attendance, engagement, participation, understanding nonverbal communications, and developing rapport with one's clinician and fellow clients. Conclusion The results of this study present an overview of client and clinician perceptions of the therapeutic impact of modes of therapy (virtual, in-person). While there is no strong evidence to suggest that one mode of care is clinically indicated over the other, the data outlines the benefits and drawbacks of both.
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.