Moreover, I-PCIT can offer a comparable quantity of therapist contact to Verteporfin chemical structure that in standard PCIT. Importantly, although this early work is promising, evaluations in controlled trials are necessary before I-PCIT can be considered

empirically supported. As such, whenever possible, traditional in-clinic PCIT should be considered the preferred treatment option, given its tremendous empirical support, although matters of geography and treatment access may introduce constraints for many families in need. We are currently conducting two separate randomized controlled trials formally evaluating the potential of Internet-delivered PCIT relative to control conditions. The first trial is a federally funded proof-of-concept study comparing I-PCIT to traditional in-clinic PCIT among families seeking care within 30 miles of a major metropolitan region. For this AZD6244 order study, all families need to be relatively local in the event that they are randomized to traditional in-clinic PCIT. As such, this study will inform the relative efficacy and satisfaction associated with I-PCIT, relative to in-clinic PCIT, but will not speak to the merits of I-PCIT for families geographically underserved by expert mental health care. In a second, foundation-funded study, we are evaluating I-PCIT relative to a waitlist control condition across an entire statewide

population of families seeking care. Collectively, these two controlled evaluations will provide critical information regarding the relative efficacy of I-PCIT and its merits in broadening the accessibility of PCIT to families in traditionally underserved regions, and will afford

preliminary examination of treatment moderators and mediators that can inform for whom and through which mechanisms I-PCIT is most effective. The field is still at a relatively nascent stage in the incorporation of new technologies in treatment delivery, and as such consensus guidelines and several professional considerations are still unfolding. For example, payer issues still need to be addressed (see Comer & Barlow, 2014). A few years ago, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code Liothyronine Sodium 98969 was introduced, characterizing online services provided by a nonphysician health-care provider. However, this code does not specify the conduct of psychotherapy, and as such many third-party payers will not reimburse for CPT code 98969 for the treatment of DBDs. Currently, many of the individual and family psychotherapy CPT codes refer to face-to-face visits in an office, outpatient facility, inpatient hospital, partial hospital, or residential care facility. Accordingly, within the current health-care procedural terminology, it is not clear how I-PCIT providers are to most appropriately characterize their work.