Table 5.
Comparison between 2020 and 2022 cohorts regarding online therapy experience.
| 2020 Sample ^ | 2022 Sample | Test Statistic | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mdn. (IQR) | N | Mdn. (IQR) | N | ||
| Clinicians | N = 23 | N = 16 | |||
| Self-efficacy | 7 (6–8) | 23 | 8 (7.25–8) | 16 | U = 130.50, p = 0.13 |
| Self-efficacy compared to face-to-face | 4 (3–6) | 23 | 4.5 (3–6) | 16 | U = 175.00, p = 0.81 |
| Level of comfort | 4 (3–6) | 23 | 9 (8.25–10) | 16 | U = 18.00, p < 0.001 ** |
| Comfort compared to face-to-face | 4 (3–6) | 23 | 5 (5–7) | 16 | U = 119.50, p = 0.07 |
| Impact of technology on treatment experience | 4 (2–6) | 23 | 5 (2–7.75) | 16 | U = 174.00, p = 0.79 |
| Young People | N = 53 | N = 25 | |||
| Overall experience | 5 (4–6) | 53 | 5 (4–6) | 22 | U = 491.00, p = 0.27 |
| Difficulties understood by therapist | 6 (4.25–7) | 52 | 6 (5–6) | 23 | U = 572.50, p = 0.76 |
| Address important issues | 5 (4–6) | 52 | 6 (5–7) | 23 | U = 446.50, p = 0.07 |
| Impact of technology on treatment experience | 3 (2–4) | 53 | 2 (1–4) | 18 | U = 348.00, p = 0.08 |
| Benefit from online therapy | 5 (3.75–7) | 46 | 6 (4–7) | 15 | U = 305.50, p = 0.50 |
| Parents/Caregivers | N = 75 | N = 49 | |||
| Overall experience | 6 (4.75–7) | 70 | 6 (5–7) | 45 | U = 1565.00, p = 0.95 |
| Difficulties understood by therapist | 7 (6–7) | 70 | 7 (6–7) | 45 | U = 1501.00, p = 0.64 |
| Address important issues | 6 (5–7) | 71 | 7 (6–7) | 45 | U = 1160.50, p = 0.01 * |
| Impact of technology on treatment experience | 7 (5–7) | 58 | 3.5 (1–4) | 42 | U = 420.50, p < 0.001 ** |
| Benefit from online therapy | 7 (5–7) | 58 | 6 (5–7) | 36 | U = 951.50, p = 0.45 |
Note: Ratings for young people and parent/caregiver surveys used a 1–7 scale (1 = lowest possible negative score; and 7 = highest possible positive score). Ratings for clinicians used a 1–10 scale (1 = lowest possible negative score; and 10 = highest possible positive score). * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.001; ^ Data originally reported by Stewart et al. [16].