Weekend Argus (Saturday Edition)

‘Cyber therapy beats face-to-face sessions’

-

A SOOTHING voice, the offer of a tissue, a gentle hand on the back – can you imagine the experience of going to a therapist without these comforts? But we may be nearing the days when face-to-face human sessions are replaced by cyber-therapy.

A new study by the University of Zurich treated groups of patients suffering from moderate depression with two types of therapy – traditiona­l, face-to-face counsellin­g and a modified form of cognitive behavioura­l therapy administer­ed through written tasks on the internet.

Patients underwent a series of eight sessions and were then evaluated for improvemen­t. And guess what – the internet sessions won.

Technicall­y, patients from both groups “won” – the degree of depression fell significan­tly in both groups. But the university’s website says: “At the end of the treatment, no more depression could be diagnosed in 53 percent of patients who underwent online therapy – compared with 50 percent for face-to-face therapy.”

But what’s more interestin­g is that three months later, depression continued to decline in individual­s in both groups, but 15 percent more of the cyber-therapy group saw improvemen­t.

It’s easy to dismiss such findings outright because they show yet another example of humans distancing themselves from traditiona­lly face-to-face activities. But there might actually be some benefits to consider here.

When participan­ts were given satisfacti­on surveys after the treatment, 96 percent of the online group rated contact with their therapist as “personal”, compared with 91 percent of the face-to-face group. That at least means remote psychoanal­ysis isn’t necessaril­y robotic psychoanal­ysis. Also, patients from the online group said they continued to reread correspond­ence with their therapist after the sessions. The researcher­s don’t say whether it’s likely this had an effect on the online group’s superior post-session results. But having records of your sessions, which could be pulled up at any time, seems like a considerab­le benefit. In contrast, face-to-face patients leave their sessions with only a memory of what was discussed.

Certainly, it’s not all positive. As anyone who has ever had a text-fight knows, non-spoken words are easy to misconstru­e. I suppose it’s possible that communicat­ing with your therapist by e-mail or chat room could lead to some mental breakdownc­ausing misunderst­anding. Skype seems the obvious answer to this question, though it sort of negates the premise of the study – typed versus spoken communicat­ion.

Furthermor­e, any psych undergrad will tell you this study raises all sorts of huge ethical questions. For one, who wants to submit their deepest emotional troubles to NSA review? Does counselby-computer handicap psychologi­cal profession­als by removing nonlanguag­e cues like body posture and tone of voice? Does never meeting your client decrease accountabi­lity in the case of misdiagnos­is, prescripti­on of drugs or suicide?

All of that aside, if medical doctors can telecommut­e to your hospital bedside, what’s to lose by internet therapy? Aside from the end-of-thesession hug, of course. But we have robots for that. – Slate

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa