ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has played a vital role in providing psychiatric treatment to patients during the rapid transition of services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the use of telemedicine is expected to expand within the psychiatric field. The efficacy of telemedicine is well described in scientific literature. However, there is a need for a comprehensive quantitative review that analyzes and considers the different clinical outcomes and psychiatric diagnoses. OBJECTIVE: This paper aimed to assess whether individual psychiatric outpatient treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder, mood disorders, and anxiety disorders in adults using telemedicine is equivalent to in-person treatment. METHODS: A systematic search of randomized controlled trials was conducted using recognized databases for this review. Overall, 4 outcomes were assessed: treatment efficacy, levels of patient satisfaction, working alliance, and attrition rate. The inverse-variance method was used to summarize the effect size for each outcome. RESULTS: A total of 7414 records were identified, and 20 trials were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The trials included posttraumatic stress disorder (9 trials), depressive disorder (6 trials), a mix of different disorders (4 trials), and general anxiety disorder (1 trial). Overall, the analyses yielded evidence that telemedicine is comparable with in-person treatment regarding treatment efficacy (standardized mean difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.09; P=.84; I2=19%, 17 trials, n=1814), patient satisfaction mean difference (-0.66, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.28; P=.17; I2=44%, 6 trials, n=591), and attrition rates (risk ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.94-1.21; P=.32; I2=0%, 20 trials, n=2804). The results also indicated that the working alliance between telemedicine and in-person modalities was comparable, but the heterogeneity was substantial to considerable (mean difference 0.95, 95% CI -0.47 to 2.38; P=.19; I2=75%, 6 trials, n=539). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provided new knowledge on individual telemedicine interventions that were considered equivalent to in-person treatment regarding efficacy, patient satisfaction, working alliance, and attrition rates across diagnoses. The certainty of the evidence regarding efficacy was rated as moderate. Furthermore, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to strengthen the evidence base for treatment provided via telemedicine in psychiatry, particularly for personality disorders and a range of anxiety disorders where there is a lack of studies. Individual patient data meta-analysis is suggested for future studies to personalize telemedicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021256357; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=256357.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Major advancements in technology have led to considerations how telemedicine (TM) and other technology platforms can be meaningfully integrated in treatment for psychiatric disorders. The COVID-19 pandemic has placed a further focus on use of TM in psychiatry. Despite the widespread use of TM, little is known about its effect compared with traditional in-person (IP) consultation. The objective of this systematic review is to examine if individual psychiatric outpatient interventions for adults using TM are comparable to IP in terms of (1) psychopathology outcomes, (2) levels of patient satisfaction, (3) working alliance and (4) dropout from treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will only include randomised controlled trials for adult participants with mood disorders, anxiety or personality disorders. The primary outcome is psychopathology, and secondary outcomes include patient satisfaction, treatment alliance and dropout rate. Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science and CINAHL. The inverse-variance method will be used to conduct the meta-analysis. Effect sizes will be calculated as standardised mean difference (Hedges' g) for the primary outcome, mean difference for patient satisfaction and working alliance, and risk ratio for the dropout rate. Effect sizes will be supplemented with 95% CI. We will calculate the I² statistic to quantify heterogeneity and Chi-square statistic (χ²) to test for heterogeneity for the primary outcome. Potential clinical and methodological heterogeneity moderators will be assessed in subgroup and sensitivity analysis. The risk of bias will be assessed by Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool V.2, and confidence in cumulative evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required for this systematic review protocol. Data sets will be deposited in the Zenodo repository. The findings of this study will be published in a peer-review scientific journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021256357.