Adherence With Online Therapy vs Face-to-Face Therapy and With Online Therapy vs Care as Usual: Secondary Analysis of Two Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Adherence to internet-delivered interventions targeting mental health such as online psychotherapeutic aftercare is important for the intervention's impact. High dropout rates limit the impact and generalizability of findings. Baseline differences may be putting patients at risk for dropping out, making comparisons between online with face-to-face (F2F) therapy and care as usual (CAU) necessary to examine. Objective: This study investigated adherence to online, F2F, and CAU interventions as well as study dropout among these groups and the subjective evaluation of the therapeutic relationship. Sociodemographic, social-cognitive, and health-related variables were considered. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, 6023 patients were recruited, and 300 completed the baseline measures (T1), 144 completed T2 (retention 44%-52%), and 95 completed T3 (retention 24%-36%). Sociodemographic variables (eg, age, gender, marital status, educational level), social-cognitive determinants (eg, self-efficacy, social support), health-related variables (eg, depressiveness), and expectation towards the treatment for patients assigned to online or F2F were measured at T1. Results: There were no significant differences between the groups regarding dropout rates (x(1)(2) =0.02-1.06, P >=.30). Regarding adherence to the treatment condition, the online group outperformed the F2F and CAU conditions (P <=.01), indicating that patients randomized into the F2F and CAU control groups were much more likely to show nonadherent behavior in comparison with the online therapy groups. Within study groups, gender differences were significant only in the CAU group at T2, with women being more likely to drop out. At T3, age and marital status were also only significant in the CAU group. Patients in the online therapy group were significantly more satisfied with their treatment than patients in the F2F group (P=.02; Eta(2)=.09). Relationship satisfaction and success satisfaction were equally high (P>.30; Eta(2)=.02). Combining all study groups, patients who reported lower depressiveness scores at T1 (T2: odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.35-0.87; T3: OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37-0.92) were more likely to be retained, and patients who had higher self-efficacy (T2: OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37-0.89; T3: OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.85) were more likely to drop out at T2 and T3. Additionally, at T3, the lower social support that patients reported was related to a higher likelihood of remaining in the study (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96). Comparing the 3 intervention groups, positive expectation was significantly related with questionnaire completion at T2 and T3 after controlling for other variables (T2: OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.08-2.50; T3: OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01-2.51). Conclusions: While online interventions have many advantages over F2F variants such as saving time and effort to commute to F2F therapy, they also create difficulties for therapists and hinder their ability to adequately react to patients' challenges. Accordingly, patient characteristics that might put them at risk for dropping out or not adhering to the treatment plan should be considered in future research and practice. Online aftercare, as described in this research, should be provided more often to medical rehabilitation patients.

Automated summary

This study examined adherence to online, face-to-face, and care as usual interventions, as well as study dropout rates and subjective evaluations of the therapeutic relationship. Results showed no significant differences in dropout rates between different intervention groups, while the online intervention group demonstrated better treatment adherence compared to face-to-face and care as usual groups. Patient characteristics may impact treatment adherence and risk of dropout.