A wide-ranging survey focusing on the experiences of analysts providing telehealth treatment approximately six months into the pandemic was sent to one hundred randomly selected APsaA graduate analysts, one hundred randomly selected APsaA candidate analysts, and then to everyone on the APsaA members’ Listserv. Presented both open-ended and closed-ended questions, analysts were invited to quantify and reflect on their experience. Responding analysts in each of the three groups described similar experiences. Each group noted that they have, overall, moved from a neutral to a modestly positive acceptance of telehealth as a means of delivering psychoanalysis. In describing the frame and process of telehealth, the analysts reported wide differences in patient response to the change in format, including positive, negative, and highly specific shifts in the treatment process attributable to the change in format. Telehealth, it appears, is a distinct space in which psychoanalysis can be conducted. In general, respondents minimized the impact of the pandemic itself on the analytic process, though the process may have been more impacted by the pandemic than they were reporting. All three groups almost unanimously reported interest in exploring innovative psychoanalytic techniques.
BassA. (2007). When the frame doesn’t fit the picture. Psychoanalytic Dialogues17:1–27.
5.
BaylesM. (2012). Is physical proximity essential to the psychoanalytic process? An exploration through the lens of Skype. Psychoanalytic Dialogues22:569–585.
6.
BékésV.Aafjes–van DoornK.ProutT.A.HoffmanL. (2020). Stretching the analytic frame: Analytic therapists’ experiences with remote therapy during Covid-19. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association68:437–446.
7.
BlegerJ. (1967). Psycho-analysis of the psycho-analytic frame. International Journal of Psychoanalysis48:511–519.
8.
Chasseguet-SmirgelJ. (1992). Some thoughts on the psychoanalytic situation. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association40:3–25.
9.
ContrerasP.M. (2020). The magical and the my-person in psychoanalysis during the Covid pandemic. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association68:1113–1126.
10.
EhrlichL.T. (2010). The analyst’s ambivalence about continuing and deepening an analysis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association58:515–532.
11.
EhrlichL.T. (2019). Teleanalysis: Slippery slope or rich opportunity?Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association67:249–279.
12.
FreudS. (1912). Recommendations to physicians practising psycho-analysis. Standard Edition12:111–120.
13.
GabbardG.O. (1994). Psychodynamic Psychiatry in Clinical Practice: The DSM-IV Edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
14.
GabbardG.O. (2007). Flexibility of the frame revisited: Commentary on Tony Bass’ “When the frame doesn’t fit the picture.”Psychoanalytic Dialogues17:923–929.
15.
GabbardG.O. (2020). The analyst and the virus. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association68:1089–1099.
16.
GabbardG.O.LitowitzB.E.WilliamsP. (2012). Textbook of Psychoanalysis. 2nd ed.Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
17.
GazzilloF.WaldronS.GormanB.StukenbergK.W.GenovaF.RistucciC.AngeloniF.MelloneV.FacciniF. (2018). The components of psychoanalyses: Factor analysis of process measures of 27 fully recordrd psychoanalyses. Psychoanalytic Psychology35:184–195.
18.
GonzálezF.J. (2020). Looking beyond: A psychoanalytic future. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association68:1101–1111.
19.
GreenbergJ. (1994). The changing paradigm of psychoanalysis. International Forum of Psychoanalysis3:221–226.
20.
GutiérrezL. (2017). Silicon in ‘pure gold’? Theoretical contributions and observations on teleanalysis by videoconference. International Journal of Psychoanalysis98:1097–1120.
21.
LevensonE.A. (1982). Follow the fox: An inquiry into the vicissitudes of psychoanalytic supervision. Contemporary Psychoanalysis18:1–15.
22.
MachadoD.B.LaskoskiP.B.SeveroC.T.BassolsA.M.SfoggiaA.KowacsC.KriegerD.V.TorresM.B.GastaudM.B.WellausenR.S.TecheS.P.EizirikC.L. (2016). A psychodynamic perspective on a systematic review of online psychotherapy for adults. British Journal of Psychotherapy32:79–108.
23.
MachlufR.Abba DaleskiM.ShaharB.KulaO.Bar-KalifaE. (2021). Couples therapists’ attitudes toward online therapy during the Covid-19 crisis. Family Process61:146–154.
24.
MarguliesA. (2020). Falling out of the world—and the longing for home. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association68:1127–1136.
25.
McWilliamsN. (2004). Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy: A Practitioner’s Guide. New York: Guilford Press.
26.
MitchellS.A. (1998). The analyst’s knowledge and authority. Psychoanalytic Quarterly67:1–31.
27.
NorcrossJ.C.LambertM.J. (2011). Evidence-based therapy relationships. In Psychotherapy relationships that work: Evidence-based responsiveness, ed. NorcrossJ.C.New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–22.
28.
O’NeilM.RangellL. (1954). Panel reports: Annual Meeting, 1953—I. Psychoanalysis and dynamic psychotherapy—similarities and differences. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association2:152–166.
29.
PersonE.S.CooperA.M.GabbardG.O. (2005). Textbook of Psychoanalysis. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
30.
RoeslerC. (2017). Tele-analysis: The use of media technology in psychotherapy and its impact on the therapeutic relationship. Journal of Analytical Psychology62:372–294.
31.
RussellG.I. (2015). Screen Relations: The Limits of Computer-Mediated Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy. London: Karnac Books.
