Telehealth Versus Face-to-face Psychotherapy for Less Common Mental Health Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Mental disorders are a leading cause of distress and disability worldwide. To meet patient demand, there is a need for increased access to high-quality, evidence-based mental health care. Telehealth has become well established in the treatment of illnesses, including mental health conditions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct a robust evidence synthesis to assess whether there is evidence of differences between telehealth and face-to-face care for the management of less common mental and physical health conditions requiring psychotherapy. METHODS: In this systematic review, we included randomized controlled trials comparing telehealth (telephone, video, or both) versus the face-to-face delivery of psychotherapy for less common mental health conditions and physical health conditions requiring psychotherapy. The psychotherapy delivered had to be comparable between the telehealth and face-to-face groups, and it had to be delivered by general practitioners, primary care nurses, or allied health staff (such as psychologists and counselors). Patient (symptom severity, overall improvement in psychological symptoms, and function), process (working alliance and client satisfaction), and financial (cost) outcomes were included. RESULTS: A total of 12 randomized controlled trials were included, with 931 patients in aggregate; therapies included cognitive behavioral and family therapies delivered in populations encompassing addiction disorders, eating disorders, childhood mental health problems, and chronic conditions. Telehealth was delivered by video in 7 trials, by telephone in 3 trials, and by both in 1 trial, and the delivery mode was unclear in 1 trial. The risk of bias for the 12 trials was low or unclear for most domains, except for the lack of the blinding of participants, owing to the nature of the comparison. There were no significant differences in symptom severity between telehealth and face-to-face therapy immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.05, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.27) or at any other follow-up time point. Similarly, there were no significant differences immediately after treatment between telehealth and face-to-face care delivery on any of the other outcomes meta-analyzed, including overall improvement (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.39), function (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.42), working alliance client (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.57), working alliance therapist (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.59), and client satisfaction (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.53), or at any other time point (3, 6, and 12 months). CONCLUSIONS: With regard to effectively treating less common mental health conditions and physical conditions requiring psychological support, there is insufficient evidence of a difference between psychotherapy delivered via telehealth and the same therapy delivered face-to-face. However, there was no includable evidence in this review for some serious mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, and further high-quality research is needed to determine whether telehealth is a viable, equivalent treatment option for these conditions.

The effectiveness of telehealth versus face-to face interventions for anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, it is estimated that 264 million people meet the diagnostic criteria for anxiety conditions. Effective treatment regimens consist of cognitive and behavioural therapies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, treatment delivery relied heavily on telemedicine technologies which enabled remote consultation with patients via phone or video platforms. We aim to identify, appraise and synthesise randomised controlled trials comparing telehealth to face-to-face delivery of care to individuals of any age or gender, diagnosed with anxiety disorders, and disorders with anxiety features. METHODS: To conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched three electronic databases, clinical trial registries and citing-cited references of included studies. RESULTS: A total of five small randomised controlled trials were includable; telehealth was conducted by video in three studies, and by telephone in two. The risk of bias for the 5 studies was low to moderate for most domains. Outcomes related to anxiety, depression symptom severity, obsessive-compulsive disorder, function, working alliance, and satisfaction were comparable between the two modes of delivery at each follow-up time point (immediately post-intervention, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months), with no significant differences reported (p > 0.05). None of the trials reported on the costs of telehealth compared to face-to-face care. DISCUSSION: For effectively treating anxiety and related conditions, interventions delivered by telehealth appear to be as effective as the same therapy delivered in-person. However, further high-quality trials are warranted to determine the effectiveness, acceptability, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions for the management of a wider range of anxiety disorders and treatments.

Examining Australian's beliefs, misconceptions and sources of information for COVID-19: a national online survey.

OBJECTIVE: Public cooperation to practise preventive health behaviours is essential to manage the transmission of infectious diseases such as COVID-19. We aimed to investigate beliefs about COVID-19 diagnosis, transmission and prevention that have the potential to impact the uptake of recommended public health strategies. DESIGN: An online cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: A national sample of 1500 Australian adults with representative quotas for age and gender provided by an online panel provider. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Proportion of participants with correct/incorrect knowledge of COVID-19 preventive behaviours and reasons for misconceptions. RESULTS: Of the 1802 potential participants contacted, 289 did not qualify, 13 declined and 1500 participated in the survey (response rate 83%). Most participants correctly identified 'washing your hands regularly with soap and water' (92%) and 'staying at least 1.5 m away from others' (90%) could help prevent COVID-19. Over 40% (incorrectly) considered wearing gloves outside of the home would prevent them from contracting COVID-19. Views about face masks were divided. Only 66% of participants correctly identified that 'regular use of antibiotics' would not prevent COVID-19.Most participants (90%) identified 'fever, fatigue and cough' as indicators of COVID-19. However, 42% of participants thought that being unable to 'hold your breath for 10 s without coughing' was an indicator of having the virus. The most frequently reported sources of COVID-19 information were commercial television channels (56%), the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (43%) and the Australian Government COVID-19 information app (31%). CONCLUSIONS: Public messaging about hand hygiene and physical distancing to prevent transmission appears to have been effective. However, there are clear, identified barriers for many individuals that have the potential to impede uptake or maintenance of these behaviours in the long term. We need to develop public health messages that harness these barriers to improve future cooperation. Ensuring adherence to these interventions is critical.

Concerns and Misconceptions About the Australian Government's COVIDSafe App: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Timely and effective contact tracing is an essential public health measure for curbing the transmission of COVID-19. App-based contact tracing has the potential to optimize the resources of overstretched public health departments. However, its efficiency is dependent on widespread adoption. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the uptake of the Australian Government's COVIDSafe app among Australians and examine the reasons why some Australians have not downloaded the app. METHODS: An online national survey, with representative quotas for age and gender, was conducted between May 8 and May 11, 2020. Participants were excluded if they were a health care professional or had been tested for COVID-19. RESULTS: Of the 1802 potential participants contacted, 289 (16.0%) were excluded prior to completing the survey, 13 (0.7%) declined, and 1500 (83.2%) participated in the survey. Of the 1500 survey participants, 37.3% (n=560) had downloaded the COVIDSafe app, 18.7% (n=280) intended to do so, 27.7% (n=416) refused to do so, and 16.3% (n=244) were undecided. Equally proportioned reasons for not downloading the app included privacy (165/660, 25.0%) and technical concerns (159/660, 24.1%). Other reasons included the belief that social distancing was sufficient and the app was unnecessary (111/660, 16.8%), distrust in the government (73/660, 11.1%), and other miscellaneous responses (eg, apathy and following the decisions of others) (73/660, 11.1%). In addition, knowledge about COVIDSafe varied among participants, as some were confused about its purpose and capabilities. CONCLUSIONS: For the COVIDSafe app to be accepted by the public and used correctly, public health messages need to address the concerns of citizens, specifically privacy, data storage, and technical capabilities. Understanding the specific barriers preventing the uptake of contact tracing apps provides the opportunity to design targeted communication strategies aimed at strengthening public health initiatives, such as downloading and correctly using contact tracing apps.