(PS5-C65) Community Clinicians’ Views on Feasibility of Delivering Youth Ebts Virtually

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many mental health providers began offering virtual therapy to youth and families. Research conducted in the context of controlled trials and academic affiliated clinics suggests that evidence-based treatments (EBTs), such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), can be effectively adapted to a virtual format (Vigerland et al., 2016; Frank et al., 2021). However, little is known about the feasibility of delivering EBTs virtually in community settings. The present study examined the degree to which community clinicians, who had been trained in EBTs for youth through a county-funded training initiative, view virtual relative to in-person delivery of EBTs as feasible. The sample included 52 clinicians (59.6% White; 92.3% female; M_age = 43.7) who worked across a range of clinical settings. As these EBTs were originally developed for in-person delivery, we hypothesized that clinicians would perceive in-person delivery as more feasible than virtual delivery.

Clinicians had participated in at least one of four trainings in EBTs for youth: Trauma-Focused CBT (TF-CBT), Core Competency CBT for Teens (CC-CBT), Modular Approach to Therapy for Children with Anxiety, Depression, Trauma, or Conduct Problems (MATCH), and Family Intervention for Suicide Prevention (FISP). Clinicians completed the Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) for each intervention that they were trained in and used with youth clients. A separate FIM was completed for each mode of delivery (virtual or in-person) used. The FIM scores for clinicians who used both formats with at least one of the three multi-session CBT protocols (TF-CBT, CC-CBT, and MATCH) were collapsed and a paired samples t-test was conducted. If clinicians indicated delivering more than one EBT in both formats, the FIM score for the most recently attended EBT training was used. Clinicians also completed a qualitative question which asked them “Do you have any suggestions about how to make it easier to deliver this EBT virtually via telehealth?”.

On average, FIM scores (range of 1-5, higher scores indicate greater feasibility) suggest that clinicians found all trainings to be highly feasible to deliver in both in-person and virtual formats [TF-CBT: in-person: N = 26, M = 4.43 (.72), virtual: N = 20, M = 4.58 (.74); CC-CBT: in-person: N = 18, M = 4.32 (.50), virtual: N = 17, M = 4.24 (.65); MATCH: in-person: N = 17, M = 4.34 (.87), virtual: N = 12, M = 4.33 (.62); FISP: in-person: N = 27, M = 4.27 (.67), virtual: N = 12, M = 4.23 (.63)]. Among clinicians who indicated delivering multi-session CBT protocols in both formats, a paired t-test indicated no significant difference between clinician in-person versus virtual FIM scores (N = 24, p = .16). With regard to qualitative responses, clinicians suggested that modifying worksheets so that they can be completed online, adjusting the pacing of the intervention, and using high quality video conferencing and screensharing equipment would improve the ease of virtual delivery.

Results indicate that clinicians viewed EBTs as highly feasible in both formats. Virtual therapy should be prioritized as an option in community settings as it can have a large impact on decreasing barriers to care, such as transportation cost, travel time, childcare, and stigma.