The use of technological supports in psychotherapeutic interventions has been widespread in recent years. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the increase has been greater. The feasibility of online group interventions has been proved in previous studies. Research comparing dropout rates in group interventions with clinical population that include mindfulness training is infrequent.

To compare the difference in dropout rates between online and face-to-face mindfulness-based group interventions.

This study was carried out in a Mental Health Unit in Colmenar Viejo (Madrid, Spain). One hundred thirty-five adult patients with anxiety disorders were included in group interventions (74 face-to-face; 61 online). The group treatments were Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and a Mindfulness-based Emotional Regulation intervention, during 8 weeks, guided by two Clinical Psychology residents. A descriptive analysis of dropout rates (participants attending 3 or fewer sessions out of the total number of participants starting the intervention) was performed.

Of the 135 patients included, 8 did not participate in the interventions (5 face-to-face; 3 online), which represents a 5.93% rejection rate; 6.76% for the face-to-face intervention and 4.92% for the online intervention. Of the remaining sample (127 participants), a total dropout rate of 12.6% was obtained, with 8.69% in the face-to-face intervention versus 17.24% online.

A higher dropout rate was obtained in online interventions compared to face-to-face, with an increase of almost double. Research on specific factors that may interfere with treatment adherence to online group interventions is needed.

No significant relationships.

Virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) is currently being used to treat social anxiety disorder (SAD); however, VRET's magnitude of efficacy, duration of efficacy, and impact on treatment discontinuation are still unclear.

We conducted a meta-analysis of studies that investigated the efficacy of VRET for SAD. The search strategy and analysis method are registered at PROSPERO (#CRD42019121097). Inclusion criteria were: (1) studies that targeted patients with SAD or related phobias; (2) studies where VRET was conducted for at least three sessions; (3) studies that included at least 10 participants. The primary outcome was social anxiety evaluation score change. Hedges' g and its 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effect models. The secondary outcome was the risk ratio for treatment discontinuation.

Twenty-two studies (n = 703) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. The efficacy of VRET for SAD was significant and continued over a long-term follow-up period: Hedges' g for effect size at post-intervention, −0.86 (−1.04 to −0.68); three months post-intervention, −1.03 (−1.35 to −0.72); 6 months post-intervention, −1.14 (−1.39 to −0.89); and 12 months post-intervention, −0.74 (−1.05 to −0.43). When compared to in vivo exposure, the efficacy of VRET was similar at post-intervention but became inferior at later follow-up points. Participant dropout rates showed no significant difference compared to in vivo exposure.

VRET is an acceptable treatment for SAD patients that has significant, long-lasting efficacy, although it is possible that during long-term follow-up, VRET efficacy lessens as compared to in vivo exposure.