Abstract
Virtual humans (VHs), teletherapy, and self-guided e-manuals may increase the accessibility of psychological interventions. However, there is limited research on how these technologies compare in terms of their feasibility and acceptability in delivering stress management interventions.
We conducted a preliminary comparison of the feasibility and acceptability of a VH, teletherapy, and an e-manual at delivering 1 module of cognitive behavioral stress management (CBSM) to evaluate the feasibility of the trial methodology in preparation for a future randomized controlled trial (RCT).
A pilot RCT was conducted with a parallel, mixed design. A community sample of distressed adult women were randomly allocated to receive 1 session of CBSM involving training in cognitive and behavioral techniques by a VH, teletherapy, or an e-manual plus homework over 2 weeks. Data were collected on the feasibility of the intervention technologies (technical support and homework access), trial methods (recruitment methods, questionnaire completion, and methodological difficulty observations), intervention acceptability (intervention completion, self-report ratings, therapist rapport, and trust), and acceptability of the trial methods (self-report ratings and observations). Qualitative data in the form of written responses to open-ended questions were collected to enrich and clarify the findings on intervention acceptability.
Overall, 38 participants' data were analyzed. A VH (n=12), teletherapy (n=12), and an e-manual (n=14) were found to be feasible and acceptable for delivering 1 session of CBSM to distressed adult women based on the overall quantitative and qualitative findings. Technical difficulties were minimal and did not affect intervention completion, and no significant differences were found between the conditions (P=.31). The methodology was feasible, although improvements were identified for a future trial. All conditions achieved good satisfaction and perceived engagement ratings, and no significant group differences were found (P>.40). Participants had similar willingness to recommend each technology (P=.64). There was a nonsignificant trend toward participants feeling more open to using the VH and e-manual from home than teletherapy (P=.10). Rapport (P<.001) and trust (P=.048) were greater with the human teletherapist than with the VH. The qualitative findings enriched the quantitative results by revealing the unique strengths and limitations of each technology that may have influenced acceptability.
A VH, teletherapy, and a self-guided e-manual were found to be feasible and acceptable methods of delivering 1 session of a stress management intervention to a community sample of adult women. The technologies were found to have unique strengths and limitations that may affect which works best for whom and in what circumstances. Future research should test additional CBSM modules for delivery by these technologies and conduct a larger RCT to compare their feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness when delivering a longer home-based stress management program.
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620000859987; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380114&isReview=true.
