Abstract
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health professionals were forced to find an appropriate way of working with patients that would ensure the continuity of therapy while considering the restrictions aimed at counteracting the spread of the virus. Online therapy has become an increasingly popular and common form of psychotherapeutic work. Emerging scientific studies have confirmed the positive effects of remote psychotherapeutic work. Nevertheless, modifying traditional and well-known forms of therapy or introducing completely new forms of remote therapy have been associated with several ethical concerns and challenges for psychotherapists. OBJECTIVE: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the emerging epidemiological restrictions and recommendations, as well as new recommendations from psychotherapeutic associations, this study aimed to investigate the following: (1) Have psychotherapists experienced ethical dilemmas related to working online and face-to-face during the COVID-19 pandemic? (2) Was the occurrence of these dilemmas related to the therapists' personal characteristics, such as age, sex, professional experience, or therapeutic approach? (3) What specific ethical dilemmas do psychotherapists point to in conducting online and face-to-face therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic? METHODS: We conducted an international study with 177 psychotherapists from 4 European countries (Sweden, Poland, Germany, and Portugal) using a web-based survey. The psychotherapeutic approaches represented in the sample were cognitive-behavioral, integrative, psychodynamic-psychoanalytic, systemic, existential and gestalt, and Ericksonian therapy, among others. An interview comprising closed and open questions was used to collect data on psychotherapists' personal characteristics, professional functioning, and ethical dilemmas encountered during online and face-to-face therapy. RESULTS: Ethical dilemmas related to online therapy were reported by 58.7% (104/177) of therapists, while dilemmas related to face-to-face therapy were reported by 61% (108/177). The study showed that these dilemmas were independent of the personal and professional characteristics of therapists. Dilemmas related to online therapy were concern about online therapy, the issue of privacy and confidentiality of sessions, the effectiveness of online therapy, the issue of limitations that may hinder clinical work, and concerns related to the broader systemic and institutional context. In contrast, for the face-to-face form, ethical dilemmas mainly concerned health and safety, limitations in communication and quality of relationships due to wearing masks, and technical and logistical limitations. CONCLUSIONS: The issues considered here have not lost their relevance, because despite the lifting of restrictions related to the pandemic, some of the described dilemmas are similar to those related to coping with the risk and transmission of infection during face-to-face meetings. Moreover, the spread of online therapy means that the related ethical dilemmas are still relevant. The results indicate the direction of further consideration, the outcome of which should be specific ethical and legal guidelines that consider the concerns and dilemmas reported.