IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v71y2010i7p1308-1315.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

You can't get anything perfect: "User perspectives on the delivery of cognitive behavioural therapy by telephone"

Author

Listed:
  • Bee, Penny Elizabeth
  • Lovell, Karina
  • Lidbetter, Nicola
  • Easton, Katherine
  • Gask, Linda

Abstract

Remote psychotherapy services such as telephone-administered cognitive behavioural therapy (T-CBT) have the potential to provide effective psychological treatment whilst simultaneously maximising efficiency, lowering costs and improving access to care. However, a lack of research examining the acceptability of non face-to-face psychotherapy means that little is known about users' perceptions of these delivery models. This paper reports data from two qualitative evaluations of T-CBT delivered in the voluntary and occupational health sectors in the UK. It explores users' acceptance of T-CBT, contrasting initial socially-construed expectations with more positive regard derived from experiential norms. User satisfaction with T-CBT was mixed. However, the relative ease with which most participants adapted to telephone-based care was suggestive of a shared construct of mental health service provision that prioritised the accessibility and availability of services over the social, professional and medico-legal perspectives that conventionally promote the co-location of practitioner and client.

Suggested Citation

  • Bee, Penny Elizabeth & Lovell, Karina & Lidbetter, Nicola & Easton, Katherine & Gask, Linda, 2010. "You can't get anything perfect: "User perspectives on the delivery of cognitive behavioural therapy by telephone"," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(7), pages 1308-1315, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:71:y:2010:i:7:p:1308-1315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(10)00528-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. May, Carl & Gask, Linda & Atkinson, Theresa & Ellis, Nicola & Mair, Frances & Esmail, Aneez, 2001. "Resisting and promoting new technologies in clinical practice: the case of telepsychiatry," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 52(12), pages 1889-1901, June.
    2. Williams, Tracy & May, Carl & Mair, Frances & Mort, Maggie & Gask, Linda, 2003. "Normative models of health technology assessment and the social production of evidence about telehealth care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 39-54, April.
    3. May, Carl & Mort, Maggie & Williams, Tracy & Mair, Frances & Gask, Linda, 2003. "Health technology assessment in its local contexts: studies of telehealthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 697-710, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. May, Carl & Finch, Tracy & Mair, Frances & Mort, Maggie, 2005. "Towards a wireless patient: Chronic illness, scarce care and technological innovation in the United Kingdom," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(7), pages 1485-1494, October.
    2. Shaw, Sara E. & Greenhalgh, Trisha, 2008. "Best research - For what? Best health - For whom? A critical exploration of primary care research using discourse analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2506-2519, June.
    3. Andreassen, Hege K. & Dyb, Kari & May, Carl R. & Pope, Catherine J. & Warth, Line L., 2018. "Digitized patient–provider interaction: How does it matter? A qualitative meta-synthesis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 36-44.
    4. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    5. Baptiste Isabet & Maribel Pino & Manon Lewis & Samuel Benveniste & Anne-Sophie Rigaud, 2021. "Social Telepresence Robots: A Narrative Review of Experiments Involving Older Adults before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-26, March.
    6. Na-Kyoung Hwang & Sun-Hwa Shim & Hye-Won Cheon, 2022. "Use of Information and Communication Technology by South Korean Occupational Therapists Working in Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-13, May.
    7. Myriam Le Goff-Pronost & Claude Sicotte, 2010. "The added value of thorough economic evaluation of telemedicine networks," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(1), pages 45-55, February.
    8. Chuka Emezue & Jo‐Ana D. Chase & Tipparat Udmuangpia & Tina L. Bloom, 2022. "Technology‐based and digital interventions for intimate partner violence: A systematic review and meta‐analysis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), September.
    9. Hendy, Jane & Barlow, James, 2012. "The role of the organizational champion in achieving health system change," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 348-355.
    10. Nicolini, Davide, 2006. "The work to make telemedicine work: A social and articulative view," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2754-2767, June.
    11. Alan Serrano & Javier Garcia-Guzman & Georgios Xydopoulos & Ali Tarhini, 2020. "Analysis of Barriers to the Deployment of Health Information Systems: a Stakeholder Perspective," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 455-474, April.
    12. Erik Thorstensen, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Views on Responsible Assessments of Assistive Technologies through an Ethical HTA Matrix," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-32, June.
    13. Hedgecoe, Adam, 2005. "'At the point at which you can do something about it, then it becomes more relevant': Informed consent in the pharmacogenetic clinic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(6), pages 1201-1210, September.
    14. Joanna L Hudson & Peter Bower & Evangelos Kontopantelis & Penny Bee & Janine Archer & Rose Clarke & Andrew S Moriarty & David A Richards & Simon Gilbody & Karina Lovell & Chris Dickens & Linda Gask & , 2019. "Impact of telephone delivered case-management on the effectiveness of collaborative care for depression and anti-depressant use: A systematic review and meta-regression," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-17, June.
    15. Chuka Emezue & Tina L. Bloom, 2021. "PROTOCOL: Technology‐based and digital interventions for intimate partner violence: A meta‐analysis and systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), March.
    16. Carboni, Chiara & Wehrens, Rik & van der Veen, Romke & de Bont, Antoinette, 2022. "Conceptualizing the digitalization of healthcare work: A metaphor-based Critical Interpretive Synthesis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    17. MacFarlane, Anne & Murphy, Andrew William & Clerkin, Pauline, 2006. "Telemedicine services in the Republic of Ireland: An evolving policy context," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 245-258, May.
    18. Kate Lyle, 2021. "Interventional STS: A Framework for Developing Workable Technologies," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 26(2), pages 410-426, June.
    19. Williams, Tracy & May, Carl & Mair, Frances & Mort, Maggie & Gask, Linda, 2003. "Normative models of health technology assessment and the social production of evidence about telehealth care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 39-54, April.
    20. Ahmadi, Hossein & Nilashi, Mehrbakhsh & Shahmoradi, Leila & Ibrahim, Othman & Sadoughi, Farahnaz & Alizadeh, Mojtaba & Alizadeh, Azar, 2018. "The moderating effect of hospital size on inter and intra-organizational factors of Hospital Information System adoption," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 124-149.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:71:y:2010:i:7:p:1308-1315. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.