Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Mental Health

Date Submitted: Apr 9, 2018
Open Peer Review Period: Apr 9, 2018 - May 2, 2018
Date Accepted: May 3, 2018
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Public Attitudes Toward Guided Internet-Based Therapies: Web-Based Survey Study

Apolinário-Hagen J, Harrer M, Kählke F, Fritsche L, Salewski C, Ebert DD

Public Attitudes Toward Guided Internet-Based Therapies: Web-Based Survey Study

JMIR Ment Health 2018;5(2):e10735

DOI: 10.2196/10735

PMID: 29764797

PMCID: 5974457

Public Attitudes Toward Guided Internet-Based Therapies: Web-Based Survey Study

  • Jennifer Apolinário-Hagen; 
  • Mathias Harrer; 
  • Fanny Kählke; 
  • Lara Fritsche; 
  • Christel Salewski; 
  • David Daniel Ebert

ABSTRACT

Background:

Internet interventions have been proposed to improve the accessibility and use of evidence-based psychological treatments. However, little is known about attitudes toward such treatments, which can be an important barrier to their use.

Objective:

This study aimed to (1) determine attitudes toward guided internet interventions, (2) assess its acceptability compared with other internet-based formats, and (3) explore predictors of acceptance.

Methods:

A convenience-sample Web-based survey (N=646) assessed attitudes toward guided internet therapies (ie, perceived usefulness and helpfulness, and advantage relative to face-to-face therapy), preferences for delivery modes (ie, e-preference: guided internet interventions, unguided internet interventions, or videoconferencing psychotherapy), and potential predictors of attitudes and preferences: sociodemographics, help-seeking–related variables, attachment style, and perceived stress.

Results:

Although most participants perceived internet interventions as useful or helpful (426/646, 65.9%), a few indicated their advantage relative to face-to-face therapy (56/646, 8.7%). Most participants preferred guided internet interventions (252/646, 39.0%) over videoconferencing psychotherapy (147/646, 22.8%), unguided internet interventions (124/646, 19.2%), and not using internet interventions (121/646, 18.8%; missing data: 1/646, 0.2%). Attachment avoidance and stress were related to e-preference (all P<.05). Moreover, preference for therapist-guided internet interventions was higher for individuals who were aware of internet-based treatment (χ26=12.8; P=.046).

Conclusions:

Participants assessed therapist-guided internet interventions as helpful, but not equivalent to face-to-face therapies. The vast majority (523/646, 81.0%) of the participants were potentially willing to use internet-based approaches. In lieu of providing patients with only one specific low-intensity treatment, implementation concepts should offer several options, including guided internet interventions, but not limited to them. Conversely, our results also indicate that efforts should focus on increasing public knowledge about internet interventions, including information about their effectiveness, to promote acceptance and uptake.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Apolinário-Hagen J, Harrer M, Kählke F, Fritsche L, Salewski C, Ebert DD

Public Attitudes Toward Guided Internet-Based Therapies: Web-Based Survey Study

JMIR Ment Health 2018;5(2):e10735

DOI: 10.2196/10735

PMID: 29764797

PMCID: 5974457

Per the author's request the PDF is not available.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.