The corona crisis offered a natural experiment to compare videoconferencing treatment with in person treatment. The COVID-19 epidemic requiring social distancing through its lockdown measures...Show moreThe corona crisis offered a natural experiment to compare videoconferencing treatment with in person treatment. The COVID-19 epidemic requiring social distancing through its lockdown measures forced a sudden and total transition from in person to videoconferencing mode of treatment provision, irrespective of the preference of the therapist or client. Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) data allowed the comparison of three groups of treatment delivery: (1) treatments that were largely or completely performed in person, (2) treatments that started in person but suddenly switched to treatment via videoconferencing due to the corona measures, and (3) treatments that were performed entirely with video conferencing. The research question in this study is: How does treatment conducted (partially) through videoconferencing compare to in person therapy in effectiveness? It was hypothesized that full in person treatment would be more effective than (partial) videoconferencing treatment. The participants in this research were patients receiving treatment at Sinai Center, a Mental Healthcare Clinic in The Netherlands, specialized in the treatment of PTSD. The patients who were included in this study were predominantly diagnosed with PTSD and had completed their treatment in the years 2018 till 2021. ROM data were used to analyse the pre- and post-test scores of the three cohorts with repeated measures ANOVA in a two (time) by three (conditions) factorial design. Also, the proportions of recovered, improved, unchanged, and deteriorated patients were compared among the three cohorts with a chi-square test. Contrary to what was hypothesized, the results showed that there was no significant difference between the three treatment groups in outcome of therapy. Some limitations of the study may have influenced the results; incomplete background information of the patients to account for in the analyses, lack of a disorder specific questionnaire to measure outcome, the effects of the pandemic and lockdown on the patients.Show less
