"Method A total of 62 participants suffering from depression were randomly assigned to the therapist-supported internet-based intervention group (n=32) and to the face-to-face intervention (n=30)."

"Limitations Due to the small sample size, it will be important to evaluate these outcomes in adequately-powered trials."

"Conclusions This study shows that an internet-based intervention for depression is equally beneficial to regular face-to-face therapy. However, more long term efficacy, indicated by continued symptom reduction three months after treatment, could be only be found for the online group. "

They go in depth into the limitations of the study in section 4.1, but in a nutshell the sample size was too small and heterogeneous. I look forward to seeing more research in this area, but one cannot make the claim "Psychotherapy via Internet found as good as or better than face-to-face" just yet.

Actually, they did find it as good or better, just not conclusively.... not that one ever could.

(I agree with the analysis—a larger sample size is definitely needed—but I get annoyed by people who discard studies entirely. This is far, far better than no study.)

Potentially yes, but when you consider anecdotal evidence to be trials with sample size 1, this is still a large improvement.

That was a year ago, and while I've had an episode since, I got help within days and was better within weeks. Sure beats the 6 months it usually takes!

Only an anecdote, but it worked well for me, and my ex girlfriend (severe anxiety). I think it's great for those who don't want to play Psychologist Roulette.

It's also been shown in experiments to be beneficial: see e.g. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/63/4/644/ http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/65/2/324/

I know there's also another study that compared it to a placebo book instead of just a waiting list control group, and it was better than the placebo book too.

That's what I and my ex girlfriend used. She introduced me to it. :)

It's a slightly different branch of therapy called CBM (cognitive bias modification), but research shows it to be just as effective, while being much simpler (IMO). Here's an interesting documentary that deals with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs046iOPlqM

People need the ability to heavily filter input in order to function properly. Failure to do so (i.e. over-sensitivity) is strongly correlated with issues like depression/anxiety/autism and a whole slew of other things. Just think of how many faces you see when you walk down the street, and how many of those you actually remember just a few minutes later -- that's your selective attention kicking in to prevent you from getting your memory overloaded with useless information. Same thing here.

It's amazing just a few days ago there was an article on the front page about how tripping on LSD or Magic Mushrooms was life changing for the better.

Sometimes depression is caused by lack of sunlight, exercise, poor diet, bad environment (stressful) and other times it's caused by seeing the world for what it really is: A depressing cesspool of suffering, death, meaninglessness, and no purpose or hope. Sometimes all it takes is realizing that the universe and laws of nature are "evil", rewarding the most violent and aggressive species while punishing the weak or passive with miserable deaths, is all it takes to fall into a subtle depression. CBT teaches you to recognize the pattern of thinking that leads to those thoughts and training yourself to stop before you reach that state of mind.

Smells like bad experimental design. Shouldn't the face-to-face subjects also be completing written tasks in session as a control? There are entire schools of psychotherapy that require in-session activities.

If not, then they should compare standard talk face-to-face therapy with online CBT "chat."

As an addendum: I think social sciences are categorically separate from harder sciences (good social scientists understand this) and attempts at laboratory/population experiments are typically laughable. They're usually just done because that's what the people and organizations that fund the departments want.

Is that not exactly the same for the 'hard sciences'?

Phone Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Works as Well as In-Person Therapy:

http://www.choosehelp.com/news/emotional-health/study-phone-...

Talking treatments work equally well for depression:

http://www.webmd.boots.com/depression/news/20130529/talking-...

edit: I guess it's not. It's true, though. Even religious counseling works just as well as reality-based. The content doesn't really matter.

I'm a PhD candidate in clinical psychology who just started building a new website to address this issue. If anyone here is interested in telepsychotherapy (therapy using any form of digital communication), I'm currently looking for a talented dev/designer to join me as cofounder. It's an exciting time for my field, and I think with the right mix of innovation and professional standards, the mental health world will soon see a revolution in the types of services we offer and the populations we treat.

The Birgit et al. article is just one of a growing number of studies that supports the efficacy of telepsychotherapy. It's true that --as some commentators have mentioned-- the study has limitations. That can be said about a vast majority of RCTs and other clinical-science studies. But we can expect to see more and more of this research in the coming years. A number of professional mental health organizations have recently formed task forces and developed guidelines for ehealth practitioners, and those in the legal realm are working on reducing regulatory/statutory barriers to telemedicine.

There are, of course, certain limits to telepsychotherapy. For example, it's not a replacement for in-person treatment of individuals with severe mental illness (e.g., suicidal tendencies). However, it carries a world of potential, both for developing new multimodal services and for reaching persons who would not otherwise receive services. Medicare already reimburses teletherapy for persons in rural areas.

I can be reached at [email protected] - would be happy to hear from anyone who is interested in discussing further.

It's one thing being open about normal depression, it's another to talk about highly problematic mental disorders.

I can only directly recommend the '80s version, before the "Behavioral" bit was added, but I found it to be very very powerful. In 20/20 hindsight, so good that talk therapy afterwords hasn't been useful (there's no doubt a bit of Psychologist Roulette as grivo puts it involved, maybe there's a better therapist out there that I haven't found, but...).

It would be great if it were true, but there's not enough information available to draw any conclusions at this point.

It makes a lot of sense that you might be more inhibited in a room with the actual therapist, and more disinhibited if it's just over the phone, or looking at your laptop screen.

And therapy is just talk -- it's not like a doctor who has to judge your blood pressure.

But at some point it was changed to this (not by me): http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2013/psychotherapie-via...

Why did this happen?

which discusses social anxiety, and compares cognitive behavior therapy without direct interaction over the internet, vs group cognitive behavior therapy.

That said, it's difficult to deal with confounding factors if you only see your patient during assessments. And the possibility that staring at a monitor is itself a form of phototherapy comes to mind.

I think this is great.

Can you elaborate on that?

my 'gut' reaction to this is 'does psychotherapy work at all?' rather than 'i wonder why this is true.'