Acceptance of E-Mental Health Services for Different Application Purposes Among Psychotherapists in Clinical Training in Germany and Switzerland: Secondary Analysis of a Cross-Sectional Survey

Pia Braun; Marie Drüge; Severin Hennemann; Felix Jan Nitsch; Robert Staeck; Jennifer Apolinário-Hagen

doi:10.3389/fdgth.2022.840869

Acceptance of E-Mental Health Services for Different Application Purposes Among Psychotherapists in Clinical Training in Germany and Switzerland: Secondary Analysis of a Cross-Sectional Survey

Front Digit Health. 2022 Feb 28:4:840869. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2022.840869. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Pia Braun¹, Marie Drüge², Severin Hennemann³, Felix Jan Nitsch^{4

5}, Robert Staeck², Jennifer Apolinário-Hagen¹

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Centre for Health and Society, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
² Department of Clinical Psychology/Psychotherapy Research, Institute of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
³ Department of Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy and Experimental Psychopathology, Institute of Psychology, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
⁴ Marketing Area, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.
⁵ Paris Brain Institute (ICM), INSERM U 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.

Abstract

Background: Despite solid evidence supporting the efficacy of electronic mental health (EMH) services, their acceptance among psychotherapists is limited and uptake rates remain low. However, the acceptance of different EMH services has yet barely been examined in future generations of psychotherapists in a differentiated manner. The aims of this study were (1) to elaborate the intention to use various EMH services for different application purposes and (2) to determine predictors of EMH service acceptance among psychotherapists in clinical training (PiT).

Materials and methods: Our paper is based on a secondary data analysis of a cross-sectional survey. Respondents were recruited via recognized educational institutions for psychotherapy within Germany and the German-speaking part of Switzerland between June and July of 2020. The survey contained items on the intention to use different EMH services (i.e., guided and unguided programs, virtual reality, psychotherapy by telephone and videoconference) for various application purposes (i.e., prevention, treatment addition, treatment substitute, aftercare). Potential predictors of EMH service acceptance (e.g., barriers and advantages) were examined based on an extension of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT).

Results: Most of the n = 216 respondents were female (88.4%) and located in Germany (72.2%). General acceptance of EMH was moderate (M = 3.4, SD = 1.12, range 1-5), while acceptance of psychotherapy via videoconference was highest (M = 3.7, SD = 1.15) and acceptance of unguided programs was lowest (M = 2.55, SD = 1.14). There was an interaction effect of EMH service and application purpose (η² = 0.21). Barriers and advantages both had a uniform influence on EMH service acceptance (Pr > 0.999), while impersonality, legal concerns, concerns about therapeutic alliance, simplified information provision, simplified contact maintenance, time flexibility, and geographic flexibility were significant predictors (all p < 0.05). Results showed that the extended UTAUT model was the best fitting model to predict EMH service acceptance (Pr > 0.999).

Conclusions: The intention to use different EMH services varied between application purposes among PiT. To increase acceptance of EMH services and reduce misconceptions, we identified predictors that should be addressed in future acceptance-facilitating interventions when educating PiT.

Keywords: acceptance; eHealth; eMental health; psychotherapists; telemedicine; unified theory of acceptance and use of technology.