Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-4ws75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T09:41:29.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2025

Jini K Gopinath*
Affiliation:
YourDost, Psychology, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
Marsha Rodrigues
Affiliation:
Christ (Deemed to be University), Bangalore, Karnataka, India
Puneet Manuja
Affiliation:
YourDost, Psychology, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
*
Corresponding author: Jini K Gopinath; Email: jini@yourdost.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Increasing mental health issues in India demands for a strong intervention to curb the rise. According to the World Health Organization, roughly around 21 Indians out of 100,000 die by suicide every year. The burden on mental health domain increases due to the existing system as most of the existing services follow a traditional approach and are most sought after but lack reachability and ease of access. This study recognises the need for programmes that help in reachability and ease of access while simultaneously maintaining anonymity, therefore, analyses the impact of chat-based therapy provided online through the platform. The paper analyses the difference in subjective unit of well-being (SUW) pre and post chat-based sessions among 2624 college students and 805 corporate employees. The Wilcoxon signed rank test between pre and post intervention indicates significant results with the p < 0.001 (Z = −44.100a) suggesting and increase in SUW scores post intervention. Further, the Kruskal–Wallis test revealed that the gender of the clients has an association with the SUW scores (p < 0.05). It was also found that the duration of the sessions had a positive relation with the impact scores (p < 0.001).

Topics structure

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics based on organization type and other variables

Figure 1

Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics based on gender and other variables

Figure 2

Table 3. Sociodemographic characteristics based on duration and other variables

Figure 3

Table 4. Table displaying SUW

Figure 4

Table 5. Sociodemographic characteristics based on problem category and other variables

Figure 5

Table 6. Table displaying correlation between Impact and other variables

Supplementary material: File

Gopinath et al. supplementary material

Gopinath et al. supplementary material
Download Gopinath et al. supplementary material(File)
File 18.4 KB

Author comment: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R0/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The authors are conducting research in an important area, mental health in areas with limited access to care due to geography, resources and stigma/discrimination. Although important work, the research presented is lacking. The authors should include detailed information on purpose and rationale for targeting both corporate employees and college students for the intervention, what are the specific challenges identified in these populations in the evidence that justify the research and then details on existing evidence on CBT with target population, with justification based on research for the use of chat based platform for the delivery of the CBT intervention. The study design is weak, pre-post intervention design provides limited information on the relationship of the intervention to outcome of well-being. Further, absence of key information in the methods, increase description of the corporate and college environments, for example do these settings have wellness programs for their employees/students? How is the chat intervention integrated into existing programs for employees/students? How did the participants learn about the study, how were they recruited (inclusion/exclusion criteria), the authors states gender diverse sample, how is this defined for the study? Please reference ethics approval, who provided the approval for the study? What exactly was the intervention, I am assuming the participants had different level of engagement with the counselor - please detail the dose of the intervention, was their standard material used by the counselor based on CBT, how were the counselors supervised/mentored during the study? What exactly was offered to participants who enrolled in the study? What measures/tools were used to examine the variables in the study, had they been previously validated? Please detail analysis used. The discussions should detail how the findings from the study inform the existing evidence on technology facilitated interventions in mental health, more details on the “problems” identified by the participants, the majority identified “relationship” - does this include conflict/partner violence, and/or is this related to a lack of quality relationships/loneliness? What exactly are the relationship issues, also what were the referrals provided to participants who need more support than chat counseling - for example, where participants referred to violence prevention programs/in person mental health services in location, etc. The discussion section needs a section on limitations in design, findings, etc.

Review: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

I commend the authors for their valuable research elucidating the effect of chat counseling. Given the anonymity and confidentiality of such services, there are a limited number of studies exploring their effectiveness. This underscores the significance of this contribution in advancing the existing literature. However, I have several recommendations and requests for clarification that will benefit the quality of the manuscript overall. Please see below:

<b>Abstract:</b>

The phrasing of lines 11 through 15 is unclear. Perhaps referencing specific structural barriers to traditional help-seeking would increase clarity.

Rephrase prior and post to pre- and post-chat

Typo in line 27 ‘and’.

<b>Background:</b>

In a similar vein to the previous comments, perhaps defining reachability in terms of barriers to help-seeking would improve the clarity.

It is unclear what the 83% gap for treatment means in practice i.e., is this 83% of people referred to services not being seen? Is this 83% of the country or region not served by mental health services?

Online counselling has been growing in popularity rather than importance.

Examples of the advantages of online counselling versus offline counselling should be clearly stated.

In the paragraph 2 the reasons for attending online counselling over traditional in-person support should be strengthened. At present the primary arguments appear to be that those working or those in college do not have time to engage in traditional help-seeking. Regardless of this, traditional modes of help-seeking often remain the most popular. Those seeking help online attend for various reasons beyond time constraints e.g., reduced perceived stigma or embarrassment, logistic barriers such as availability of services, distance to travel, immediacy, more cost-effectiveness of some online support solutions, increased autonomy, and control. See:

Radez, J., Reardon, T., Creswell, C. et al. Why do children and adolescents (not) seek and access professional help for their mental health problems? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 30, 183–211 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-019-01469-4

Aguirre Velasco, A., Cruz, I. S. S., Billings, J., Jimenez, M., & Rowe, S. (2020). What are the barriers, facilitators and interventions targeting help-seeking behaviours for common mental health problems in adolescents? A systematic review. BMC psychiatry, 20, 1-22.

Lui, J. C., Sagar-Ouriaghli, I., & Brown, J. S. (2022). Barriers and facilitators to help-seeking for common mental disorders among university students: a systematic review. Journal of American College Health, 1-9.

Pretorius, C., McCashin, D., Kavanagh, N., & Coyle, D. (2020, April). Searching for mental health: a mixed-methods study of young people’s online help-seeking. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-13).

Paragraph 3 would be improved by better appraising the literature on chat counselling i.e., the design features, definitions of synchronous/asynchronous, and including more research re. acceptability and effectiveness.

It is unclear from paragraph 4 as to whether CBT is being implemented solely or in combination with 'motivation theory’ and ‘problem-solving therapy’. In addition, these forms of therapy need to be better described.

The inclusion of the research stating that most attend CBT for psychological issues is implied and does not strengthen the argument for using this therapeutic approach within the current context.

In paragraph 5 it is not clear what is meant by ‘…individuals based on the organisation they belong to’.

Pre-post studies are longitudinal in design, albeit, in a very simple form. Given this, the argument that most studies to date are longitudinal is invalid within the current context.

A better discussion of the benefits of examining well-being rather than taking a disorder-focused approach is needed to strengthen the arguments for this research.

<b>Hypotheses:</b>

Future tense should be used.

<b>Methods:</b>

It’s unclear as to whether the study was based on routinely collected data or this was an independently implemented evaluation.

More description of the service and the support offering is needed. For example: is the counselling offered on a single session basis? Is it synchronous or asynchronous? Are the sessions time-limited?

It is contradictory to state that the counsellors were experts but had ‘basic’ qualifications.

Please provide the wording of the SUW question asked of participants and the Likert scale response options.

Please provide details of the question(s) relating to satisfaction and the Likert response options.

How did participants sign up to attend the counselling? Was this offered/advertised through a particular University and a specific company? How were these entities chosen and why?

What software was used to analyse the data?

<b>Results: </b>

Please provide details of the inclusion/exclusion criteria re. missingness. Are those with any times missing excluded?

Provide the corresponding N alongside the percentages.

This statement is unclear”:…were carried out pre-intervention and post-intervention to determine the relation as well as associations”. What is meant by ‘relation’?

Why were Wilcoxon signed rank tests used as opposed to paired t-tests? Was this due to non-normality in the SWB measure? The sample size is quite large, so better justification in this case is necessary.

Median scores are better reported with Wilcoxon signed rank tests.

Wilcoxon signed-rank tests need to be reported with the accompanying test statistic. Please include. In addition, an effect size should be reported to better interpret the differences pre- and post.

There were no hypotheses concerning gender differences, ‘organisation’ type, duration of sessions. While it is okay to conduct exploratory analyses, if the analysis is indeed exploratory, this should be clearly stated before the results. If analysing these demographic and service-related variables concerning wellbeing scores, why not age?

It is not clear what analyses were carried out to examine differences in organisation type and avg. duration of sessions and wellbeing. Please clarify and report findings appropriately (p-value alone is not sufficient).

Some findings are repeated i.e., duration and wellbeing.

It is not clear what Base SUW refers to. Is this baseline subjective wellbeing sores?

What is meant by diverse population? Does this refer to those identifying as gender diverse? What is contained within this group?

What is the direction of the effect of organisation and gender? This is unclear.

Satisfaction was mentioned in the method section. Findings relating to levels of satisfaction do not appear to be present in the results section.

Include details on average session length. Without this, the findings related to session length are not easily interpreted.

<b>Discussion: </b>

The first and only time feasibility was referred to was in the discussion. If this study was intended to be a feasibility study to determine the scalability of the intervention, this should have been clarified in the introduction and methods sections.

The first paragraph of the discussion needs to be strengthened. Provide a summary of all results.

Better to discuss the findings re. the hypothesized effects first. The primary aim appeared to have been to assess levels of pre-post wellbeing. This should be discussed in more detail in the discussion.

Does the age of participants need to be explained at length in this section? The age of participants may be around 23 as most participants were university students. The interesting piece here is arguably concerning the mean age of those in the workplace as they could be expected to be older.

Was the mean age of all participants 23.7 or was this for college students?

Dowling and Rickwood’s 2014 systematic review did not report that more sessions increased the effectiveness of synchronous chat interventions.

It could be argued that synchronous chat interventions do not help clients ‘come up with goals and work through faulty perceptions..’ but rather the specific school of therapy offered i.e., in this case CBT. Please clarify.

Efficacy wasn’t assessed in the current study, please rephrase this in paragraph four.

Citations are needed to justify the statement re. fewer questions reducing ‘irritability’.

The clarity of arguments in the final paragraph of the discussion needs improvement. In particular, the final two statements are not clear.

<b>Tables: </b>

Overall, the tables in their current state are hard to follow and need much structural improvement.

Stick to the same number of decimal points. These vary across and within the tables.

Table 1:

Table 1 should be simplified and show differences in gender, organisation type, and problem category and associations with wellbeing post intervention.

The title needs to be clearer. What are the demographics associated with specifically? Is this post-intervention wellbeing?

Rename coefficient test-statistic (if indeed the test-statistic, this is unclear as not reported in-text).

Table 2:

Please report the median alongside the Wilcoxon signed rank tests and Mann Whitney U tests. Standard error and mean differences should not be reported with non-parametric tests.

Table 3:

What does the column ‘effectiveness’ refer to? This table is unclear.

Review: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R0/PR4

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

I would like to extend my appreciation to the authors for addressing a critical concern within the realm of mental health, particularly in Indian context where stigma and lack of access to mental health care constitute substantial obstacles. In the digital era, the emphasis on chat-based intervention is exceedingly pertinent. This research paper conducts a comprehensive examination of the efficacy of chat-based therapy. It employs rigorous statistical techniques, including the Wilcoxon signed rank test and Kruskal Wallis test, to establish that participants' subjective unit of wellbeing (SUW) improved significantly. The research incorporates a substantial sample size comprising 2624 college students and 805 corporate employees, thereby enhancing the applicability of the results to various demographic groups. The results possess the capacity to influence policy and practice by supporting the incorporation of digital platforms into mental health services in an effort to increase accessibility and scope.

A few areas for enhancement, however, remain for the authors to consider:

1. The research could be enhanced by providing more comprehensive methodological explanations, with specific attention to the participant recruitment process, the chat-based intervention’s characteristics (e.g., frequency, duration, and nature of interactions), and the measures employed to evaluate SUW.

2. Although not explicitly stated in the summary, it is imperative that potential limitations of the study, including the absence of a control group, possible biases in self-reporting measures, and the long-term viability of improvements in SUW, can be discussed.

3. The inclusion of more comprehensive comparisons with established literature in discussion, particularly those that have assessed alternative digital mental health interventions, will strengthen the efficacy of the present research. This may facilitate the findings' contextualization within the larger discipline.

4. In light of the delicate character of mental health interventions, it is imperative that the research comprehensively attends to ethical considerations, encompassing participant consent, confidentiality, and the management of any adverse events that may occur throughout the course of the study.

5. Further research recommendations could be incorporated into the study, including an examination of the enduring consequences of chat-based therapy, its efficacy across various mental health disorders, and comparative analyses with conventional in-person therapy.

6. The language check will be appreciated.

Recommendation: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R0/PR5

Comments

Thank you for considering Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health for possible publication of your manuscript. We are, however, unable to accept your manuscript in its current form and ask you to attend to the reviewers' comments and make a resubmission.

Decision: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R0/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R1/PR7

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Overall, I commend the authors of this revised manuscript. Many queries were addressed, and this has improved the work. However, there remain some issues to address throughout. In particular, language use is informal in many places. I have included some specific recommendations below. However, this should be reviewed in detail and addressed throughout. Similarly, the direction of effect across all findings is not clear in the results section. Please see below a list of additional recommendations to improve the overall manuscript.

1. Impact statement: rephrase colloquial language i.e., ‘requirement for large waves to be made’. Perhaps something related to the importance of early intervention during this timeframe.

2. Line 26 should be rephrased. Active in internet usage is not clear. Perhaps something related to the increasing time young adults spend online.

3. Repetition in phrasing in lines 37 and 38.

4. P value should not be capitalised in the abstract.

5. Line 37 – rephrase needed. Many of those who require mental health support in India, remain untreated, with recent reports indicating a treatment gap of 83% for any mental health disorder.

6. I’m not sure that the benefits of offline counselling need to be stated in the background section as it’s more important to outline the benefits of the online modality.

7. Line 11 – what is meant by etc? If there are additional structural constraints, list them.

8. Line 20 – is it appropriate to assume that those working in corporate positions experience monotony? Monotony doesn’t necessarily deter help-seeking. May be better to discuss the structural barrier of being in the workplace during the hours that many therapeutic supports are offered.

9. Line 18 – until rather than till.

10. Line 44 – Is it necessary to mention video support here if not a core element of the intervention?

11. Spell SUW out the first time mentioned in the introduction section.

12. I think that restructuring the introduction could improve flow. Starting with mental health issues in young adults, prevalence, etc, moving to barriers to support and why young people don’t seek help, suitability of online supports, youth online use, description of online chat, a brief description of iCBT and its effectiveness, current study. At present there is a large proportion of repetition. Structuring the arguments this way will reduce this repetition.

13. There are no hypotheses or research questions related to satisfaction, yet this is outlined in the results section.

Method

1. Page 10, line 22 – should be data were collected.

2. Include a subheading and title this with the name of the intervention. Describe the intervention here. This will improve the clarity of the section.

3. Include subheadings in the methods in general. Participants, materials, procedure, and data analysis as a general guide. This will again remove some repetition present in this section and improve flow.

Results

Overall, the direction of all effects needs to be outlined in the results section.

1. Page 12, line 27: make sure to note that the SD is in brackets i.e., M = 23.76 (SD = 4.35).

2. Better to report the Z statistic with the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.

3. Remain consistent with decimal places in the results. The rule of thumb is two decimal places.

4. Include headings in the results to address each hypothesis. Then outline the specific findings below these subheadings.

5. Page 12, lines 45-52: Where are the differences across organisation type? Note which group had higher/lower wellbeing scores post intervention.

6. Page 13, lines 12-13. Where are the differences in gender? Which gender profile had higher/lower satisfaction? This needs to be outlined.

7. As above in relation to gender and subjective wellbeing.

8. As above with respect to length of session and subjective wellbeing.

9. What was the mean (and SD) number of sessions attended? Is this different to the number of sessions offered to clients? Does the intervention operate on a single session basis? Note this in the results and when describing the intervention.

Discussion

1. Better to say, ‘in comparison to’, rather than ‘vs’.

2. Use past tense in the discussion section.

3. The study referenced by Dowling and Rickwood (2014) found that an increased number of sessions did not impact psychological distress.

4. It is not clear what: “references to psychiatrists were provided” refers to. What are references in this context?

5. How does the use of standardised tools facilitate broader usage of chat counselling? Not clear what the argument is here.

6. A control group wouldn’t necessarily improve effectiveness, but it provides stronger support for the effectiveness of the intervention.

Tables

1. Overall, the tables remain difficult to read. It may be worthwhile to look at other examples of similar tables to improve the presentation. It is not appropriate to include the test statistics and statistical significance in an additional table.

Recommendation: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R1/PR9

Comments

Thank you for the revised manuscript which has addressed most of the reviewer’s concerns. However, there are a number of minor revisions now required to make the manuscript acceptable for publication. Kindly attend to these as detailed by the reviewer.

Decision: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R2/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R2/PR12

Conflict of interest statement

n/a

Comments

I commend the authors on a significantly improved manuscript. However, I have a few recommendations to further enhance its quality.

The introduction contains considerable repetition, particularly in discussing factors contributing to reduced help-seeking across various populations. Restructuring the introduction may alleviate this issue and improve the overall flow. For instance, begin with the Indian context, addressing unmet mental health needs, the treatment gap, the growing population, geographical vastness, and the urban/rural divide. Then, discuss barriers to help-seeking within the adult population and workers in a separate paragraph before focusing on young people and emerging adults in another paragraph. Conclude with a discussion on online CBT and chat-based interventions.

Additionally, some small clarifications could be made in the introduction:

- Consider describing the failure to recognise or accept mental health difficulties as an issue of mental health literacy.

- Provide more explanation of the District Mental Health Programme.

- Address the typos and grammatical errors present throughout.

In the results section, italicise statistical notation i.e., p-values, M and SD, correlation coefficient etc.

Chi-square results are unclear in their interpretation in places. For example, concerning gender and organisation. This association is significant but in what direction? To assess this, you can examine the standardised residuals. If above +/- 2 they are generally considered significant. See: MacDonald, P. L., & Gardner, R. C. (2000). Type I Error Rate Comparisons of Post Hoc Procedures for I j Chi-Square Tables. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(5), 735-754. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970871

Recommendation: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R2/PR13

Comments

Kindly attend to the reviewers' additional concerns. In addition, the study did not test the effects of the intervention using a trial design. The authors cannot claim that the study tested effectiveness.

Decision: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R2/PR14

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R3/PR15

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R3/PR16

Conflict of interest statement

n/a

Comments

I would like to commend authors on a much improved manuscript. I happy to accept based on included amendments and believe this will contribute greatly to the limited literature examining chat-based interventions for mental health.

Recommendation: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R3/PR17

Comments

Before acceptance please attend to the suggested minor corrections of the handling editor. You are also requested to submit the manuscript to an English first language speaker, prior to submission, for editing as there are a number of grammatical errors in the manuscript

Specific comments

- pg 2, ln 42 - impact - change to impact on well-being levels

- pg9, ln 7 -“The program was carried out with the aim of reachability and accessibility” - However this is not what you were assessing. Make it clear that the chat-based therapy intervention was aimed at increasing access to therapy

-pg 9, ln 43 - “the change in well-being post-intervention” - the impact on change in well-being post the intervention

pg9, ln 48 - what do you mean by ‘avail therapy’

pg 14 Materials & Methods - Suggest the following order:

Intervention

Design

Data collection

Measures

Data analysis

Pg 14, ln 40-145 Suggest that you rather consider describing your study as a retrospective cohort study. This description also does not fit under the description of the inytervention, but under a section on the study design

Pg 15,ln 19 - organization type - What does this refer to?

Pg 15, ln 39 - Data analysis & criteria - This should come after the measures section

pg 15, ln 44 - is this the organization type - if so indicate this.

Pg 15 - Counsellor Supervision - This should be part of the intervention section

Pg 16 - Tools - This sub-section should be measures, not tools

Pg 16, ln 11 - Can you provide a reference for this measure? I see later that it was not a standardized measure - syou should indicate this here and provide more detail on the question asked and possible responses categories provided

Pg 16, ln 18 Provide more information on the response categories for this measure

Pg 17, para starting ln 8 - This should go under your methodology, and not in t he results section

Pg 17, ln 37 - Kruskal-Wallis test

Pg 17, ln 50 - baseline

Pg 17, Ln 52 - endline

Pg 18, ln 5 - Impact - Rather say impact on subjective well-being throughout as that is all you measured

Pg 18, ln 28 - organization - What is this referring to?

Pg 18, ln 45 - a weak association with what?

Pg 19, ln 21-31 - Please re-write to make clearer

Pg 19, ln 33- Rather just say the results are promising in terms of impact on subjective well-being

pg 19 - ln 36 - Regardless of the type of problem faced - I did not see this in the narrative results section

Pg 19, ln 45 - What intervention did Bani et al evaluate?

Pg 19, ln 54 - impact on subjsctive well-being

Pg 21, ln 41 - I am not sure this justifies usinng non-standardized scales

Pg 21, ln 41 - the impact may be scruitinized - the results of this study lack scientific rigor.

Pg 21, ln 50 - This is a better rationale for using non-standardized scales and a retrospective cohort design

pg 21, ln 57 - references - referrals?

Pg 22, ln 24 - You mean there was no comparison group? And was not a rct?

pg 22, ln 27 - Unclear what is meant here.

pg 22, ln 31 - A randomized control study would be needed to establish effectiveness

Decision: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R3/PR18

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R4/PR19

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R4/PR20

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Internet chat based intervention as a mode for therapy and counselling — R4/PR21

Comments

No accompanying comment.