ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Effectiveness and therapeutic alliance between face-to-face and online psychological interventions. A longitudinal study.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. 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.
- Digital health for cancer prevention: implications for current and future traditional in-person programs.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Since the pandemic, there has been an evident increase in demand for online psychotherapy. There exist studies focusing on the effectiveness of online therapy and identifying the situations in which it may be helpful, but a gap in literature was found on studying the effectiveness and therapeutic alliance of online psychotherapy compared to face-to-face psychotherapy. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and the evolution of therapeutic alliance between face-to-face and online psychological interventions, from the perspective of both therapists and patients. This article aims to be a continuation of the study initiated by Mercadal and Cabré in which, among other conclusions, it was found that the therapeutic alliance in an online intervention was significantly good, although not as good as in a face-to-face intervention. Methods: A total of 187 subjects aged between 18 and 29 years old participated anonymously and voluntarily in the study, 81 (43.3%), of whom were men and 106 (56.7%) were women. The instruments used were socio-demographic data, the patient version of SOFTA-o (System for Observing Family Therapeutic Alliances-observational), CORE-OM (Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure), and HoNOS (The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales). Results: The results show that there is more preference for the in-person modality than online. A correlation is also observed between CORE-Om pre and HoNOS pre; and CORE-OM post and HoNOS post, which indicates agreement between patient and therapist regarding the evolution of the treatment. At the same time, patients and therapists report better results in person than online ( Conclusion: Therapists perceive a greater improvement after the treatment rather than do patients. In addition, post-treatment scores showing an improvement in the symptomatology are related to a greater Therapeutic Alliance after treatment. Concerning the main aim of this article, both patients and therapists reported that face-to-face therapy obtains better results than the online modality, a finding consistent with the authors' preliminary studies. However, there are some limitations, such as self-selection of modality by participants, the use of a single therapist, the sample of university students, and the lack of post-intervention follow-up.
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.