Telesupervision in Psychotherapy: A Bibliometric and Systematic Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Araya, C.; Casassus, S.; Guerra, C.; Salvo, D.; Zapata, J.; Krause, M. Criterios que supervisores clínicos chilenos consideran relevantes al momento de supervisar: Un estudio cualitativo. Rev. Argent. Clin. Psicol. 2017, 26, 47–58. [Google Scholar]
- Orlinsky, D.E.; Ronnestad, M.H. How Psychotherapists Develop. A Study of Therapeutic Work and Professional Growth, 1st ed.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernard, J.M.; Goodyear, R.K. Fundamentals of Clinical Supervision, 2nd ed.; Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Falender, C.A.; Shafranske, E.P. Supervision Essentials for the Practice of Competency-Based Supervision, 1st ed.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stoltenberg, C.D.; McNeill, B.; Delworth, U. IDM Supervision: An Integrated Developmental Model for Supervising Counselors and Therapists, 1st ed.; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Beiting, M.; Nicolet, G. Screenless teletherapy and silent telesupervision: Leveraging technology for innovative service delivery and clinician training in speech-language pathology during the COVID-19 Era. CommonHealth 2020, 1, 106–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, D.J.; Self, M.M.; Davis, C., III; Conway, F.; Washburn, J.J.; Crepeau-Hobson, F. Health service psychology education and training in the time of COVID-19: Challenges and opportunities. Am Psychol. 2020, 75, 919–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, M.B.; Greif, T.R.; Galsky, A.P.; Gomez, D.; Anderson, C.; Edwards, D.S.; Cherry, A.S.; Mehari, K. Giving psychology trainees a voice during the COVID-19 pandemic: Trainee mental health, perceived safety, and support. Train Educ. Prof. Psychol. 2021, 15, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abargil, M.; Tishby, O. Countertransference awareness and treatment outcome. J. Couns. Psychol. 2022, 69, 667–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andreucci-Annunziata, P.; Bock Galvez, K. Identidad profesional del supervisor clínico: Un estudio de casos desde la perspectiva del sí-mismo dialógico. Rev. Iberoam. Psicol. Cienc. Tecnol. 2015, 8, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DePue, M.K.; Liu, R.; Lambie, G.W.; González, J. Examining the effects of the supervisory relationship and therapeutic alliance on client outcomes in novice therapists. Train Educ. Prof. Psychol. 2022, 16, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choy-Brown, M.; Baslock, D.; Cable, C.; Marsalis, S.; Williams, N.J. Correction to: In search of the common elements of clinical supervision: A systematic review. Adm. Policy Ment. Health 2022, 49, 644–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kadieva, V.D.; Williams, D.N. Building the pyramid that leads to client’s progress: Supervision, therapists’ work, and client alliance. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 2020, 49, 148–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watkins, C.E., Jr. The generic model of psychotherapy supervision: An analogized research-informing meta-theory. J. Psychother Integr. 2018, 28, 521–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heru, A.; Strong, D.; Price, M.; Recupero, P. Boundaries in psychotherapy and supervision. Am. J. Psychother. 2004, 58, 76–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lizzio, A.; Wilson, K.; Que, J. Relationship dimensions in the professional supervision of psychology graduates: Supervisee perceptions of processes and outcome. Stud. Contin. Educ. 2009, 31, 127–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alfonsson, S.; Parling, T.; Spännargård, Å.; Andersson, G.; Lundgren, T. The effects of clinical supervision on supervisees and patients in cognitive behavioral therapy: A systematic review. Cogn. Behav. Ther. 2018, 47, 206–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Teichman, Y.; Berant, E.; Shenkman, G.; Ramot, G. Supervisees’ perspectives on the contribution of supervision to psychotherapy outcomes. Couns. Psychother Res. 2022. Early Access. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watkins, W. Development of the psychotherapy supervisor: Review of and reflections on 30 years of theory and research. Am. J. Psychother. 2012, 66, 45–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Andreucci-Annunziata, P. Dispositivo de supervisión de prácticas pedagógicas: Una propuesta de re-construcción desde la complejidad. Perspect. Educ. Form. Profr. 2016, 55, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calvert, F.L.; Crowe, T.P.; Grenyer, B.F. An investigation of supervisory practices to develop relational and reflective competence in psychologists. Aust Psychol. 2017, 52, 467–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foucault, M. Saber y Verdad; La Piqueta: Madrid, Spain, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Vandette, M.P.; Jones, G.; Gosselin, J.; Kogan, C.S. The role of the supervisory working alliance in experiential supervision-of-supervision training: A mixed design and multiple perspective study. J. Psychother Integr. 2021, 31, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pennington, M.; Patton, R.; Katafiasz, H. Cybersupervision in psychotherapy. In Theory and Practice of Online Therapy. Internet-Delivered Interventions for Individuals, Groups, Families, and Organizations; Weinberg, H., Rolnick, A., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frawley-O’Dea, M.G.; Sarnat, J.E. The Supervisory Relationship: A Contemporary Psychodynamic Approach, 1st ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Springer, P.R.; Bischoff, R.J.; Taylor, N.C.; Neuhaus, V.; Leow, C. Competency-based training in the supervision of relational telemental supervision. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 2021, 47, 375–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andreucci-Annunziata, P.; Tartakowsky, V. La estrategia del sistema solar desde la perspectiva del sí mismo dialógico. Psicogente 2016, 19, 311–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Falasca, T. A humanistic, culturally sensitive approach to telesupervision: A case study. Couns. Fam. Ther. Scholarsh. Rev. 2022, 4, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferriby Ferber, M.; Heiden-Rootes, K.; Meyer, D.; Zubatsky, M.; Wittenborn, A. Couple and family therapy students’ experience of transitioning to teletherapy and telesupervision in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Syst. Ther. 2021, 32, 194–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reese, R.J.; Aldarondo, F.; Anderson, C.R.; Lee, S.J.; Miller, T.W.; Burton, D. Telehealth in clinical supervision: A comparison of supervision formats. J. Telemed. Telecare 2009, 15, 356–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rousmaniere, T.; Abbass, A.; Frederickson, J. New developments in technology-assisted supervision and training: A practical overview. J. Clin. Psychol. 2014, 70, 1082–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baier, A.L.; Danzo, S. Moving toward a new era of telepsychology in university training clinics: Considerations and curricula recommendations. Train Educ. Prof. Psychol. 2021, 15, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casline, E.; Tawfik, S.H.; Brodar, K.E.; Patel, Z.S.; Tarlow, N. Considerations for assessment training competencies in health service psychology programs in the age of COVID-19. Train Educ. Prof. Psychol. 2021, 15, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kühne, F.; Maas, J.; Wiesenthal, S.; Weck, F. Empirical research in clinical supervision: A systematic review and suggestions for future studies. BMC Psychol. 2019, 7, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2009, 62, e1–e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for sstematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Methley, A.M.; Campbell, S.; Chew-Graham, C.; McNally, R.; Cheraghi-Sohi, S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2014, 14, 579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Porter, A.L.; Kongthon, A.; Lu, J.C. Research profiling: Improving the literature review. Scientometrics 2002, 53, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harzing, A.-W.; Alakangas, S. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 787–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falagas, M.E.; Pitsouni, E.I.; Malietzis, G.; Pappas, G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008, 22, 338–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chadegani, A.A.; Salehi, H.; Yunus, M.M.; Farhadi, H.; Fooladi, M.; Farhadi, M.; Ebrahim, N.A. A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. ASS 2013, 9, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bakkalbasi, N.; Bauer, K.; Glover, J.; Wang, L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed. Digit. Libr. 2006, 3, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bulick, S. Book use as a Bradford-Zipf phenomenon. Coll. Res. Libr. 1978, 39, 215–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morse, P.M.; Leimkuhler, F.F. Technical note—Exact solution for the Bradford distribution and its use in modeling informational data. Oper. Res. 1979, 27, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Price, D.D.S. A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1976, 27, 292–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dobrov, G.M.; Randolph, R.H.; Rauch, W.D. New options for team research via international computer networks. Scientometrics 1979, 1, 387–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zipf, G. Selected Studies of the Principle of Relative Frequency in Language; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waltman, L.; van Eck, N.J.; Noyons, E.C.M. A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. J. Informetr. 2010, 4, 629–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Perianes-Rodriguez, A.; Waltman, L.; van Eck, N.J. Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting. J. Inf. 2016, 10, 1178–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Blackman, R.; Deane, F.P.; Gonsalvez, C.; Saffioti, D. Preliminary exploration of psychologists’ knowledge and perceptions of electronic security and implications for use of technology-assisted supervision. Aust Psychol. 2017, 52, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inman, A.G.; Soheilian, S.S.; Luu, L.P. Telesupervision: Building bridges in a digital era. J. Clin. Psychol. 2019, 75, 292–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tarlow, K.R.; McCord, C.E.; Nelon, J.L.; Bernhard, P.A. Comparing in-person supervision and telesupervision: A multiple baseline single-case study. J. Psychother Integr. 2020, 30, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inman, A.G.; Bashian, H.; Pendse, A.C.; Luu, L.P. Publication trends in telesupervision: A content analysis study. Clin. Superv. 2019, 38, 97–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gammon, D.; Sørlie, T.; Bergvik, S.; Høifødt, T.S. Psychotherapy supervision conducted by videoconferencing: A qualitative study of users’ experiences. J. Telemed. Telecare 1998, 4, 33–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sorlie, T.; Gammon, D.; Bergvik, S.; Sexton, H. Psychotherapy supervision face-to-face and by video conferencing: A comparative study. Br. J. Psychother. 1999, 15, 452–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perry, C.W. Constructing professional identity in an online graduate clinical training program: Possibilities for online supervision. J. Syst. Ther. 2012, 31, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, Q.N.; Fàbregues, S.; Bartlett, G.; Boardman, F.; Cargo, M.; Dagenais, P.; Gagnon, M.; Griffiths, F.; Nicolau, B.; O’Cathain, A.; et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ. Inf. 2018, 34, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Popay, J.; Roberts, H.; Sowden, A.; Petticrew, M.; Arai, L.; Rodgers, M.; Britten, N.; Roen, K.; Duffy, S. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme. Version 1. 2006. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/download/39246301/02e7e5231e8f3a6183000000.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2022).
- Shamseer, L.; Moher, D.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A.; the PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015, 349, g7647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cummings, P. Cybervision: Virtual peer group counselling supervision—Hindrance or help? Couns. Psychother. Res. 2002, 2, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez Alvarez, H.; del Pilar Grazioso, M.; Kirszman, D. Distance supervision in the Aiglé Foundation’s Latin American psychotherapy training program. J. Clin. Psychol. 2019, 75, 282–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montemurro, N. Telemedicine: Could it represent a new problem for spine surgeons to solve? Glob. Spine J. 2022, 12, 1306–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hames, J.L.; Bell, D.J.; Perez-Lima, L.M.; Holm-Denoma, J.M.; Rooney, T.; Charles, N.E.; Thompson, S.M.; Mehlenbeck, R.S.; Tawfik, S.H.; Fondacaro, K.M.; et al. Navigating uncharted waters: Considerations for training clinics in the rapid transition to telepsychology and telesupervision during COVID-19. J. Psychother. Integr. 2020, 30, 348–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caver, K.A.; Shearer, E.M.; Burks, D.J.; Perry, K.; De Paul, N.F.; McGinn, M.M.; Felker, B.L. Telemental health training in the veterans administration puget sound health care system. J. Clin. Psychol. 2020, 76, 1108–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- American Psychological Association. Guidelines for the practice of telepsychology. Am. Psychol. 2013, 68, 791–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- American Psychological Association. Standards of Accreditation for Health Service Psychology, and Accreditation Operating Procedures. 2018. Available online: https://irp.cdn-website.com/a14f9462/files/uploaded/standards-of-accreditation.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2022).
- Abbass, A.; Arthey, S.; Elliott, J.; Fedak, T.; Nowoweiski, D.; Markovski, J.; Nowoweiski, S. Web-conference supervision for advanced psychotherapy training: A practical guide. Psychotherapy 2011, 48, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, S.E.; Campbell, L.F.; Smucker Barnwell, S. Telepsychology: A primer for counseling psychologists. Couns. Psychol. 2019, 47, 1074–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright, J.; Griffiths, F. Reflective practice at a distance: Using technology in counselling supervision. Reflective Pract. 2010, 11, 693–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andreucci-Annunziata, P. Modelos de Supervisión Clínica: Una articulación dialógica de dimensiones pedagógicas y terapéuticas. Rev. Akadèmeia 2014, 12, 41–58. [Google Scholar]
- Carter, B.; Cook, G.; Bray, L.; Collingwood, A.; Saron, H.; Rouncefield-Swales, A. Parents’/caregivers’ fears and concerns about their child’s epilepsy: A scoping review. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0274001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- D’Amen, B.; Socci, M.; Santini, S. Intergenerational caring: A systematic literature review on young and young adult caregivers of older people. BMC Geriatr. 2021, 21, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hlophe, L.D.; Tamuzi, J.L.; Shumba, C.; Nyasulu, P.S. Barriers to anti-retroviral therapy adherence among adolescents aged 10 to 19 years living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: A mixed-methods systematic review protocol. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0273435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
PICOS | Description |
---|---|
Participants | Professionals or professionals in training who have been supervised in the role of psychotherapist. Professionals supervising psychotherapy. |
Interventions | Assignment to some form of telesupervision; application of self-report questionnaires; application of semi-structured and open-ended interviews. |
Comparators | Control groups where appropriate, different modalities of supervision or other interventions, etc. |
Outcomes | Results from valid and reliable measurement scales, and/or consistent with the respective reliable qualitative methods. |
Study design | Qualitative designs, quantitative randomized controlled trials, quantitative nonrandomized, quantitative descriptive and mixed methods, both cross-sectional and longitudinal. |
Document Types | Record Count (Percentage) |
---|---|
Article | 793 (89%) |
Proceeding Paper | 45 (5%) |
Review Article | 23 (3%) |
Early Access | 20 (2%) |
Book Review | 15 (2%) |
Total | 896 (100%) |
Authors, Year (Country) | Participants (N) | Professional Qualification | Interventions | Comparator | Outcomes | Study Design |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Blackman, R., Deane, F.P., Gonsalvez, C., & Saffioti, D. (2017) [51]. (Australia) | 25 participants (23 women; two men) | Seven psychologists in training; three registered psychologists and 15 registered clinical psychologists (Masters = 11 and Phd = 4) | Twenty-one-item online survey about Clinical practice behavior and perceived risk rating. Three-item online survey about Self-rated knowledge of digital security. Two-item online survey about comfort sharing recordings or notes electronically (to evaluate telesupervision). | Not applicable | Greater awareness of electronic security was inversely correlated with comfort sharing video or audio (of consenting clients) in telesupervision (rs = −0.36, p = 0.04). | Quantitative descriptive study |
Inman, A.G., Soheilian, S.S., & Luu, L.P. (2019) [52]. (USA) | 15 participants (12 women; three men) | Counseling psychology supervisors in training (Ph.D. = 7, M.Ed. = 6, M.A. = 1 and B.A. = 1). | Five open-ended questions on the challenges, benefits, ethical issues, and effectiveness of face-to-face supervision vs. telesupervision (analysis using consensus-modified qualitative research [CQR-M]) A sixth quantitatively scored question contained seven items addressing attitudes toward telesupervision. | Questions related to both types of supervision | Two-thirds of the participants thought that the quality of face-to-face supervision was better than telesupervision and one-third thought that the two formats were of equal quality. Most participants had positive attitudes toward both formats, considering them equally effective, allowing for strong supervisory relationships, with high developmental impact, and keeping on task. While one-third felt that they were more likely to be kept on task in telesupervision. Most indicated that they would participate in telesupervision again. | Convergent mixed study |
Tarlow, K.R., McCord, C.E., Nelon, J.L., & Bernhard, P.A. (2020) [53]. (USA) | 3 participants | Psychology doctoral students | Supervision Satisfaction Questionnaire (SSQ). Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory: Trainee Form (SWAI). Semi-structured interviews supervision vs. telesupervision experiences. | Starting with supervision and then changing to telesupervision at different times for each participant | There were no changes in supervision satisfaction and working alliance among participants in both modalities. One increased level in working alliance (𝝉 = 0.537, p = 0.035) when transitioning to telesupervision. Participants reported minor differences between the two modalities (difficulties perceiving nonverbal cues in telesupervision) and that effective supervisor needed to be familiar with telesupervision technology, although they preferred in-person supervision. | Case study with mixed design |
* Gammon, D., Sørlie, T., Bergvik, S., & Høifødt, T.S. (1998) [55]. (Noruega) | 8 participants | 6 psychiatry residents and 2 supervisors | Semi-structured interviews based on communication research in social psychology and qualitative characteristics of the supervision process in psychotherapy (Content analysis not specified). | Supervisions and telesupervisions interspersed in each dyad (ABAB Design) | Participants expressed concerns (regarding telesupervision) about the reduction in nonverbal cues, and the effects these may have on spontaneity, the expression of personal emotional material, and the experience of social and emotional presence. They considered telesupervision to have positive effects (e.g., verbalization, structure, self-representation, potential as a teaching tool), which were also recognized as limitations. | Qualitative descriptive study |
* Sorlie, T., Gammon, D., Bergvik, S., & Sexton, H. (1999) [56] (Noruega) | 8 participants | 6 psychiatry residents and 2 supervisors | Self-report questionnaire that included the dimensions: communication, contact, and supervisory alliance. The quality of supervisor-supervisee contact evaluated by means of a scale applied by external observers. | Supervisions and telesupervisions interspersed in each dyad (ABAB Design) | Supervisees scored higher on “disturbance” (frustration and displeasure) than supervisors (11.7 vs. 7.6). Supervisors scored “alliance” higher (18.8 vs. 15.1), while the overall mean score on “communication” (27.3) was identical. Supervisors experienced no significant differences in the factors “communication,” “alliance,” and “disturbance” between the two conditions. Supervisees experienced the face-to-face condition as the most favorable, especially about “disturbance” situations. Independent ratings of the video recordings revealed no difference in the variable “continuity of contact” in both supervision formats. | Quantitative descriptive study |
* Perry, C.W. (2012) [57]. (USA) | 16 participants (5 women; 4 men among the students) | 9 students from a university clinical training program and 7 supervisors | Open-ended interviews on supervisees’ experience of professional identity (Phenomenological analysis). | Not reported | Both supervisors and supervisees experience telesupervision as an effective means for professional identity growth. Although supervisors also feel that by not having a face-to-face encounter there is no real sense of what supervisees are signifying. | Qualitative phenomenological study |
Authors, Year (Country) | Category of study Designs | Methodological Quality Criteria | Responses | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | Cannot Tell | Comments | |||
Blackman, R., Deane, F.P., Gonsalvez, C., & Saffioti, D. (2017) [51]. (Australia) | Screening questions (For all types) | S1. Are there clear research questions? | x | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow to address the research questions? | x | |||||
1. Quantitative descriptive | 1.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the research question? | x | ||||
1.2. Is the sample representative of the target population? | x | |||||
1.3. Are the measurements appropriate? | x | |||||
1.4. Is the risk of nonresponse bias low? | x | |||||
1.5. Is the statistical analysis appropriate to answer the research question? | x | |||||
Inman, A.G., Soheilian, S.S., & Luu, L.P. (2019) [52]. (USA) | Screening questions (For all types) | S1. Are there clear research questions? | x | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow to address the research questions? | x | |||||
2. Mixed methods | 2.1. Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question? | x | ||||
2.2. Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question? | x | |||||
2.3. Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted? | x | |||||
2.4. Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed? | x | |||||
2.5. Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved? | x | |||||
Tarlow, K.R., McCord, C.E., Nelon, J.L., & Bernhard, P.A. (2020) [53]. (USA) | Screening questions (For all types) | S1. Are there clear research questions? | x | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow to address the research questions? | x | |||||
3. Mixed methods | 3.1. Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question? | x | ||||
3.2. Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question? | x | |||||
3.3. Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted? | x | |||||
3.4. Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed? | x | |||||
3.5. Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved? | x | |||||
* Gammon, D., Sørlie, T., Bergvik, S., & Høifødt, T.S. (1998) [55]. (Norway) | Screening questions (For all types) | S1. Are there clear research questions? | x | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow to address the research questions? | x | |||||
4. Qualitative | 4.1. Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question? | x | ||||
4.2. Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question? | x | |||||
4.3. Are the findings adequately derived from the data? | x | |||||
4.4. Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data? | x | |||||
4.5. Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis, and interpretation? | x | |||||
* Sorlie, T., Gammon, D., Bergvik, S., & Sexton, H. (1999) [56] (Norway) | Screening questions (For all types) | S1. Are there clear research questions? | x | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow to address the research questions? | x | It is noted that there is a qualitative part of the study, but it has already been published in a previous article. | ||||
5. Quantitative descriptive | 5.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the research question? | x | ||||
5.2. Is the sample representative of the target population? | x | |||||
5.3. Are the measurements appropriate? | x | |||||
5.4. Is the risk of nonresponse bias low? | x | |||||
5.5. Is the statistical analysis appropriate to answer the research question? | x | |||||
* Perry, C.W. (2012) [57]. (USA) | Screening questions (For all types) | S1. Are there clear research questions? | x | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow to address the research questions? | x | |||||
6. Qualitative | 6.1. Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question? | x | ||||
6.2. Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question? | x | |||||
6.3. Are the findings adequately derived from the data? | x | |||||
6.4. Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data? | x | |||||
6.5. Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis and interpretation? | x |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Andreucci-Annunziata, P.; Mellado, A.; Vega-Muñoz, A. Telesupervision in Psychotherapy: A Bibliometric and Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16366. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316366
Andreucci-Annunziata P, Mellado A, Vega-Muñoz A. Telesupervision in Psychotherapy: A Bibliometric and Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(23):16366. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316366
Chicago/Turabian StyleAndreucci-Annunziata, Paola, Augusto Mellado, and Alejandro Vega-Muñoz. 2022. "Telesupervision in Psychotherapy: A Bibliometric and Systematic Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 23: 16366. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316366