Talk:Social media therapy

HELLO RAFFY

I think its best if you delete the last two sentences to your second paragraph. If your point is that new age psychotherapists follow "client privilege", then I think that is unneeded for your purpose. What is social media therapy? I think the point of your article is not to explain the ethical guidelines these social therapists follow. I hope this helps. Have an awesome day:)

Hello Raffy

I think in the section of controversy it could be a little more concrete to help readers understand, such like the particular "standard tenets of face to face therapy" that created in online therapy. I'm sorry for doing this review so late... ><

Ruofan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astoria522 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
Good Afternoon Raffy, you have a really neat topic! I found some research by two scholars: Eva Buechel and Jonah Berger who have worked extensively in this field. I added a portion of one of their studies to your controversy section. Let me know what you think.

Slummdoggmillionaire (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Raffy

I think in the controversy part it's better to add more citations to explain the pros and cons of online therapy. In the article "Informed Consent to E-Therapy" of American Journal of Psychotherapy, the authors analysed both several risks and benefits of online therapy. Here's the link through library database http://web.a.ebscohost.com.silk.library.umass.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0589cfa3-1821-4fb6-abc6-ebf834268de9%40sessionmgr4003&vid=4&hid=4107 I added a sentence about the disadvantage of lack of face-to-face interaction cited from it.

Astoria522 (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
I really like the page and I think the sections you have are really good. I was thinking that maybe you could add a section that covers the practices a little more. By that I mean, adding a place that states exactly what it is they do for the therapy. Also, maybe a reception section that covers what people have said about it and the praise it has received from patients or medical experts, as opposed to just the controversy perhaps as a way to make it more neutral. Overall, really good though. Jakdsmith (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)