Adherence With Online Therapy vs Face-to-Face Therapy and With Online Therapy vs Care as Usual: Secondary Analysis of Two Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract

Background Adherence to internet-delivered interventions targeting mental health such as online psychotherapeutic aftercare is important for the intervention’s impact. High dropout rates limit the impact and generalizability of findings. Baseline differences may be putting patients at risk for dropping out, making comparisons between online with face-to-face (F2F) therapy and care as usual (CAU) necessary to examine. Objective This study investigated adherence to online, F2F, and CAU interventions as well as study dropout among these groups and the subjective evaluation of the therapeutic relationship. Sociodemographic, social-cognitive, and health-related variables were considered. Methods In a randomized controlled trial, 6023 patients were recruited, and 300 completed the baseline measures (T1), 144 completed T2 (retention 44%-52%), and 95 completed T3 (retention 24%-36%). Sociodemographic variables (eg, age, gender, marital status, educational level), social-cognitive determinants (eg, self-efficacy, social support), health-related variables (eg, depressiveness), and expectation towards the treatment for patients assigned to online or F2F were measured at T1. Results There were no significant differences between the groups regarding dropout rates (χ21=0.02-1.06, P≥.30). Regarding adherence to the treatment condition, the online group outperformed the F2F and CAU conditions (P≤.01), indicating that patients randomized into the F2F and CAU control groups were much more likely to show nonadherent behavior in comparison with the online therapy groups. Within study groups, gender differences were significant only in the CAU group at T2, with women being more likely to drop out. At T3, age and marital status were also only significant in the CAU group. Patients in the online therapy group were significantly more satisfied with their treatment than patients in the F2F group (P=.02; Eta²=.09). Relationship satisfaction and success satisfaction were equally high (P>.30; Eta²=.02). Combining all study groups, patients who reported lower depressiveness scores at T1 (T2: odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.35-0.87; T3: OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37-0.92) were more likely to be retained, and patients who had higher self-efficacy (T2: OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37-0.89; T3: OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.85) were more likely to drop out at T2 and T3. Additionally, at T3, the lower social support that patients reported was related to a higher likelihood of remaining in the study (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96). Comparing the 3 intervention groups, positive expectation was significantly related with questionnaire completion at T2 and T3 after controlling for other variables (T2: OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.08-2.50; T3: OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01-2.51). Conclusions While online interventions have many advantages over F2F variants such as saving time and effort to commute to F2F therapy, they also create difficulties for therapists and hinder their ability to adequately react to patients’ challenges. Accordingly, patient characteristics that might put them at risk for dropping out or not adhering to the treatment plan should be considered in future research and practice. Online aftercare, as described in this research, should be provided more often to medical rehabilitation patients. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04989842; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04989842

Distress, loneliness, and mental health during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Test of the extension of the Evolutionary Theory of Loneliness

“…Even though the high drop-out rate might limit the generalizability of the current results, several other studies have encountered similar drop-out rates in studies performed with psychosomatic rehabilitation patients (e.g. Lippke et al, 2021). Further, the results obtained by the validation study, which assess the serial mediation model with imputed data for measurement timepoint two, mimic the results of the present study.…”

The Effectiveness of Digital-Based Psychotherapy in Overcoming Psychological Problems in College Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review

“…In addition, psychotherapy carried out through the application also limits the monitoring of compliance with the use of the application according to the recommended duration ( Bruhns et al, 2021 ; Young et al, 2022 ). The results of the Lippke et al study show that there is a relevance between the expected treatment results and participants’ adherence to the use of application ( Lippke et al, 2021 ). However, other researchers concluded that using moderate-frequency applications produces only a small additional benefit when compared to the use of lower frequencies ( Donkin et al., 2013 ).…”

Effects of eHealth interventions on stress reduction and mental health promotion in healthcare professionals: A systematic review

“…With due caution, it could be suggested that self‐guided eHealth interventions promote the user's autonomy, making it easier for them to incorporate the recommendations and exercises practised during the program once it finishes. As previously stated, the problem with self‐guided interventions is that high rates of attrition might be a consequence of their flexibility, which would hinder detecting those at risk for dropping out (Lippke et al, 2021). Some degree of guidance has been associated with better outcomes (Baumeister et al, 2014) and, thus, a mixed format, such as a self‐guided web‐based program that includes some occasional online guidance (e.g.…”