Zoom up your mood - a pilot study examining the efficacy of video-conferencing versus face-to-face delivery of group CBT for depression for out-patients attending a secondary mental health service in Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Cluain Mhuire is a secondary adult mental health service based in Ireland. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in many services moving online, including our coping with depression group. A shortened, online version of the face-to-face group was piloted; however, analysis showed that it was not as effective as the longer face-to-face group. Thus, a 12-session, 2.5-hour online group CBT (gCBT) was subsequently run to directly compare the online therapy with the original face-to-face group. AIMS: The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a 12-week gCBT programme adapted to videoconferencing in reducing self-reported symptoms of depression and anxiety and enhancing quality of life (QoL). Results will be compared with the same group programme delivered face-to-face. METHOD: This is a between-groups, naturalistic treatment outcome study. Pre and post measures include the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and the World Health Organisation Quality of Life Scale (WHOQoL-Bref). A mixed between-within subjects analysis of variance was performed to assess the impact of the three interventions (face-to-face, 8-session online and 12-session online) on participant scores; 112 participants (65 women, 47 men) were recruited (mean age=41.85, SD=13.08). RESULTS: All three interventions significantly improved depression, anxiety and QoL scores. There was no significant difference between the treatment groups. Attendance was highest in the 12-session online group, followed by the 8-session online group and 12-session in-person group. CONCLUSIONS: These results add to the growing evidence supporting the effectiveness of internet-delivered gCBT in reducing depressive symptoms.

The impact of remote care approaches on continuity in primary care: a mixed-studies systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The value of continuity in primary care has been demonstrated for multiple positive outcomes. However, little is known about how the expansion of remote and digital care models in primary care have impacted continuity. AIM: To explore the impact of the expansion of remote and digital care models on continuity in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of continuity in primary care. METHOD: A keyword search of Embase, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases was used along with snowball sampling to identify relevant English-language qualitative and quantitative studies from any country between 2000 and 2022, which explored remote or digital approaches in primary care and continuity. Relevant data were extracted, analysed using GRADE-CERQual, and narratively synthesised. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in the review. The specific impact of remote approaches on continuity was rarely overtly addressed. Some patients expressed a preference for relational continuity depending on circumstance, problem, and context; others prioritised access. Clinicians valued continuity, with some viewing remote consultations more suitable where there was high episodic or relational continuity. With lower continuity, patients and clinicians considered remote consultations harder, higher risk, and poorer quality. Some evidence suggested that remote approaches and/or their implementation risked worsening inequalities and causing harm by reducing continuity where it was valuable. However, if deployed strategically and flexibly, remote approaches could improve continuity. CONCLUSION: While the value of continuity in primary care has previously been well demonstrated, the dearth of evidence around continuity in a remote and digital context is troubling. Further research is, therefore, needed to explore the links between the shift to remote care, continuity and equity, using real-world evaluation frameworks to ascertain when and for whom continuity adds most value, and how this can be enabled or maintained.

Remote care in UK general practice: baseline data on 11 case studies [version 2; peer review: 2 approved].

Background: Accessing and receiving care remotely (by telephone, video or online) became the default option during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but in-person care has unique benefits in some circumstances. We are studying UK general practices as they try to balance remote and in-person care, with recurrent waves of COVID-19 and various post-pandemic backlogs. Methods: Mixed-methods (mostly qualitative) case study across 11 general practices. Researchers-in-residence have built relationships with practices and become familiar with their contexts and activities; they are following their progress for two years via staff and patient interviews, documents and ethnography, and supporting improvement efforts through co-design. In this paper, we report baseline data. Results: Reflecting our maximum-variety sampling strategy, the 11 practices vary in size, setting, ethos, staffing, population demographics and digital maturity, but share common contextual features-notably system-level stressors such as high workload and staff shortages, and UK's technical and regulatory infrastructure. We have identified both commonalities and differences between practices in terms of how they: 1] manage the 'digital front door' (access and triage) and balance demand and capacity; 2] strive for high standards of quality and safety; 3] ensure digital inclusion and mitigate wider inequalities; 4] support and train their staff (clinical and non-clinical), students and trainees; 5] select, install, pilot and use technologies and the digital infrastructure which support them; and 6] involve patients in their improvement efforts. Conclusions: General practices' responses to pandemic-induced disruptive innovation appear unique and situated. We anticipate that by focusing on depth and detail, this longitudinal study will throw light on why a solution that works well in one practice does not work at all in another. As the study unfolds, we will explore how practices achieve timely diagnosis of urgent or serious illness and manage continuity of care, long-term conditions and complex needs.

Factors Affecting SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Intent and Decision Making Among African American, Native American, and Hispanic Participants in a Qualitative Study.

Limited studies are available on how decisions and perceptions on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have changed since the start of vaccination availability. We performed a qualitative study to identify factors critical to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination decision making and how perspectives evolved among African American/Black, Native American, and Hispanic communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19 and social and economic disadvantage. We conducted 16 virtual meetings, with 232 participants in wave 1 meetings (December 2020) and with 206 returning participants in wave 2 meetings (January and February 2021). Wave 1 vaccine concerns in all communities included information needs, vaccine safety, and speed of vaccine development. Lack of trust in government and the pharmaceutical industry was influential, particularly among African American/Black and Native American participants. Participants showed more willingness to get vaccinated at wave 2 than at wave 1, indicating that many of their information needs had been addressed. Hesitancy remained greater among African American/Black and Native American participants than among Hispanic participants. Participants in all groups indicated that conversations tailored to their community and with those most trustworthy to them would be helpful. To overcome vaccine hesitancy, we propose a model of fully considered SARS-CoV-2 vaccine decision making, whereby public health departments supply information, align with community values and recognize lived experiences, offer support for decision making, and make vaccination easy and convenient.

Clinical risk in remote consultations in general practice: findings from in-COVID-19 pandemic qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic-related rise in remote consulting raises questions about the nature and type of risks in remote general practice. AIM: To develop an empirically based and theory-informed taxonomy of risks associated with remote consultations. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative sub-study of data selected from the wider datasets of three large, multi-site, mixed-method studies of remote care in general practice before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups, with a total of 176 clinicians and 43 patients. Data were analysed thematically, taking account of an existing framework of domains of clinical risk. RESULTS: The COVID-19 pandemic brought changes to estates (for example, how waiting rooms were used), access pathways, technologies, and interpersonal interactions. Six domains of risk were evident in relation to the following: (1) practice set-up and organisation (including digital inequalities of access, technology failure, and reduced service efficiency); (2) communication and the clinical relationship (including a shift to more transactional consultations); (3) quality of clinical care (including missed diagnoses, safeguarding challenges, over-investigation, and over-treatment); (4) increased burden on the patient (for example, to self-examine and navigate between services); (5) reduced opportunities for screening and managing the social determinants of health; and (6) workforce (including increased clinician stress and fewer opportunities for learning). CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding potential benefits, if remote consultations are to work safely, risks must be actively mitigated by measures that include digital inclusion strategies, enhanced safety-netting, and training and support for staff.

Theorising the shift to video consulting in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: Analysis of a mixed methods study using practice theory.

We studied video consulting in the National Health Service during 2020-2021 through video interviews, an online survey and online discussions with people who had provided and participated in such consultations. Video consulting had previously been used for selected groups in limited settings in the UK. The pandemic created a seismic shift in the context for remote consulting, in which video transformed from a niche technology typically introduced by individual clinicians committed to innovation and quality improvement to offering what many felt was the only safe way to deliver certain types of healthcare. A new practice emerged: a co-constitution of technology and healthcare made possible by new configurations of equipment, connectivity and physical spaces. Despite heterogeneous service settings and previous experiences of video consulting, we found certain kinds of common changes had made video consulting possible. We used practice theory to analyse these changes, interpreting the commonalities found in our data as changes in purpose, material arrangements and a relaxing of rules about security, confidentiality and location of consultations. The practice of video consulting was equivocal. Accounts of, and preferences for, video consulting varied as did the extent to which it was sustained after initial take-up. People made sense of video consulting in different ways, ranging from interpreting video as offering a new modality of healthcare for the future to a sub-optimal, temporary alternative to in-person care. Despite these variations, video consulting became a recognisable social phenomenon, albeit neither universally adopted nor consistently sustained. The nature of this social change offers new perspectives on processes of implementation and spread and scale-up. Our findings have important implications for the future of video consulting. We emphasise the necessity for viable material arrangements and a continued shared interpretation of the meaning of video consulting for the practice to continue.

Achieving Spread, Scale Up and Sustainability of Video Consulting Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Findings From a Comparative Case Study of Policy Implementation in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Requirements for physical distancing as a result of COVID-19 and the need to reduce the risk of infection prompted policy supporting rapid roll out of video consulting across the four nations of the UK-England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Drawing on three studies of the accelerated implementation and uptake of video consulting across the four nations, we present a comparative and interpretive policy analysis of the spread and scale-up of video consulting during the pandemic. Data include interviews with 59 national level stakeholders, 55 health and social care staff and 30 patients, 20 national documents, responses to a UK-wide survey of NHS staff and analysis of routine activity data. Sampling ensured variations in geography, clinical context and adoption progress across the combined dataset. Comparative analysis was guided by theory on policy implementation and crisis management. The pandemic provided a "burning platform" prompting UK-wide policy supporting the use of video consulting in health care as a critical means of managing the risk of infection and a standard mode of provision. This policy push facilitated interest in video consulting across the UK. There was, however, marked variation in how this was put into practice across the four nations. Pre-existing infrastructure, policies and incentives for video consulting in Scotland, combined with a collaborative system-level approach, a program dedicated to developing video-based services and resourcing and supporting staff to deliver them enabled widespread buy-in and rapid spread. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, pre-existing support for digital health (e.g., hardware, incentives) and virtual care, combined with reduced regulation and "light touch" procurement managed to override some (but by no means all) cultural barriers and professional resistance to implementing digital change. In Northern Ireland and Wales, limited infrastructure muted spread. In all three countries, significant effort at system level to develop, review and run video consulting programs enabled a substantial number of providers to change their practice, albeit variably across settings. Across all four nations ongoing uncertainty, potential restructuring and tightening of regulations, along with difficulties inherent in addressing inequalities in digital access, raise questions about the longer-term sustainability of changes to-date.