Client preferences for and perceptions of psychotherapy modality and delivery in a university counseling setting.

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
David M Erekson, Isaac Hamm, Benjamin Jackson, Colby Schramel, Joseph Rees, Heidi A Vogeler, Katherine D Howe
{"title":"Client preferences for and perceptions of psychotherapy modality and delivery in a university counseling setting.","authors":"David M Erekson, Isaac Hamm, Benjamin Jackson, Colby Schramel, Joseph Rees, Heidi A Vogeler, Katherine D Howe","doi":"10.1037/ser0000923","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>With the rise in demand for mental health services and the changed landscape of post-COVID-19 therapy delivery, examining both therapy modality (e.g., individual, group) and delivery methods (e.g., in-person, remote) has become increasingly important. While empirical evidence generally supports equivalency of outcomes across modalities and delivery methods, there is less evidence regarding comparative preferences and perceptions of these variables. To begin to answer these questions, we surveyed a random sample of 777 university students at a large, western university. Congruent with the previous literature, results suggest that there is a strong preference for in-person individual therapy, in spite of the increased experience with teletherapy. We also found a strong reluctance to engage with group therapy. Demographic factors predicting modality and delivery preferences indicated that being older and a woman were associated with increased likelihood to prefer individual therapy (both in-person and teletherapy), and lower class standing was associated with a stronger preference for group therapy. The only symptoms predictor for preferences included higher levels of social anxiety being associated with a higher preference for online self-help. While those who had previously engaged in a particular type of therapy were typically two to three times more likely to prefer it in the future, those who had attended in-person group therapy were over five times more likely to prefer it in the future. Finally, perceptions of past experiences with in-person therapy were significantly more positive than experiences with teletherapy. We discuss the implications of these findings for future research and practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20749,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Services","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000923","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With the rise in demand for mental health services and the changed landscape of post-COVID-19 therapy delivery, examining both therapy modality (e.g., individual, group) and delivery methods (e.g., in-person, remote) has become increasingly important. While empirical evidence generally supports equivalency of outcomes across modalities and delivery methods, there is less evidence regarding comparative preferences and perceptions of these variables. To begin to answer these questions, we surveyed a random sample of 777 university students at a large, western university. Congruent with the previous literature, results suggest that there is a strong preference for in-person individual therapy, in spite of the increased experience with teletherapy. We also found a strong reluctance to engage with group therapy. Demographic factors predicting modality and delivery preferences indicated that being older and a woman were associated with increased likelihood to prefer individual therapy (both in-person and teletherapy), and lower class standing was associated with a stronger preference for group therapy. The only symptoms predictor for preferences included higher levels of social anxiety being associated with a higher preference for online self-help. While those who had previously engaged in a particular type of therapy were typically two to three times more likely to prefer it in the future, those who had attended in-person group therapy were over five times more likely to prefer it in the future. Finally, perceptions of past experiences with in-person therapy were significantly more positive than experiences with teletherapy. We discuss the implications of these findings for future research and practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

在大学心理咨询中,来访者对心理治疗方式和交付的偏好和感知。
随着对精神卫生服务需求的增加和covid -19后治疗提供情况的变化,检查治疗方式(如个人、团体)和提供方法(如面对面、远程)变得越来越重要。虽然经验证据通常支持不同模式和交付方法的结果等效,但关于这些变量的比较偏好和感知的证据较少。为了回答这些问题,我们随机调查了一所大型西方大学的777名大学生。与先前的文献一致,结果表明,尽管远程治疗的经验增加了,但人们对面对面的个体治疗有强烈的偏好。我们还发现他们非常不愿意参与团体治疗。预测方式和分娩偏好的人口统计学因素表明,年龄较大和女性倾向于个体治疗(面对面和远程治疗)的可能性增加,而社会地位较低的人更倾向于群体治疗。唯一能预测偏好的症状包括,社交焦虑程度越高,对在线自助的偏好越高。虽然那些以前接受过某种治疗的人将来更喜欢这种治疗的可能性是其他人的两到三倍,但那些参加过面对面团体治疗的人将来更喜欢这种治疗的可能性是其他人的五倍以上。最后,对过去亲身治疗经验的认知明显比远程治疗经验更积极。我们讨论了这些发现对未来研究和实践的影响。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological Services
Psychological Services PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
13.00%
发文量
216
期刊介绍: Psychological Services publishes high-quality data-based articles on the broad range of psychological services. While the Division"s focus is on psychologists in "public service," usually defined as being employed by a governmental agency, Psychological Services covers the full range of psychological services provided in any service delivery setting. Psychological Services encourages submission of papers that focus on broad issues related to psychotherapy outcomes, evaluations of psychological service programs and systems, and public policy analyses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信