ABSTRACT
BackgroundEarly in 2020, mental health services had to rapidly shift from face-to-face models of care to delivering the majority of treatments remotely (by video or phone call or occasionally messaging) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in several challenges for staff and patients, but also in benefits such as convenience or increased access for people with impaired mobility or in rural areas. There is a need to understand the extent and impacts of telemental health implementation, and barriers and facilitators to its effective and acceptable use. This is relevant both to future emergency adoption of telemental health, and to debates on its future use in routine mental health care. ObjectiveTo investigate the adoption and impacts of telemental health approaches during the COVID-19 Pandemic, and facilitators and barriers to optimal implementation. MethodsFour databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science) were searched for primary research relating to remote working, mental health care, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Preprint servers were also searched. Results of studies were synthesised using framework synthesis. ResultsA total of 77 papers met our inclusion criteria. In most studies, the majority of contacts could be transferred to a remote form during the pandemic, and good acceptability to service users and clinicians tended to be reported, at least where the alternative to remote contacts was interrupting care. However, a range of impediments to dealing optimal care by this means were also identified. ConclusionsImplementation of telemental health allowed some continuing support to the majority of service users during the COVID-19 pandemic and has value in an emergency situation. However, not all service users can be reached by this means, and better evidence is now needed on long-term impacts on therapeutic relationships and quality of care, and on impacts on groups at risk of digital exclusion and how to mitigate these.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundTele-mental health care has been rapidly adopted to maintain services during the pandemic, and there is now substantial interest in its future role. Service planning and policy making for recovery from the pandemic and beyond should draw not only on COVID-19 experiences, but also on the substantial research evidence accumulated prior to this. Aimsto conduct an umbrella review of systematic reviews of research literature and evidence-based guidance on remote working in mental health, including both qualitative and quantitative literature. MethodThree databases were searched between January 2010 and August 2020 for systematic reviews meeting pre-defined criteria. Reviews retrieved were independently screened and those meeting inclusion criteria were synthesised and assessed for risk of bias. Narrative synthesis was used to report findings ResultsNineteen systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. Fifteen examined clinical effectiveness, eight reported on aspects of tele-mental health implementation, ten reported on acceptability to service users and clinicians, two on cost-effectiveness and one on guidance. Most reviews were assessed as low quality. Findings suggested that video-based communication could be as effective and acceptable as face-face formats, at least in the short-term. Evidence was lacking on extent of digital exclusion and how it can be overcome, or on significant context such as children and young people and inpatient settings. ConclusionsThis umbrella review suggests that tele-mental health has potential to be an effective and acceptable form of service delivery. However, we found limited evidence on impacts of large-scale implementation across catchment areas. Combining previous evidence and COVID-19 experiences may allow realistic planning for future tele-mental health implementation.
ABSTRACT
The relationship between serum prolactin and bone mineral density (BMD) in schizophrenia is unclear. We conducted a literature review of databases from inception until December 2018 for cross-sectional, case-control, prospective and retrospective studies analyzing correlations between serum prolactin and BMD measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry or quantitative ultrasound at any skeletal site in people with schizophrenia. Data was summarized with a best evidence synthesis. This review identified 15 studies (1 longitudinal study, 10 cross-sectional and 4 case-control studies; 1,360 individuals with a psychotic disorder; mean age 45.1 ± 9.4 [standard deviation] years, female 742 [54.6%], mean illness duration 17.7 ± 11.3 years) assessing the relationship between serum prolactin and BMD in schizophrenia. There was a statistically significant inverse correlation between serum prolactin and BMD identified in eight of the studies (53% of all studies), suggesting mixed evidence for an association between serum prolactin and BMD. Of those studies which identified a significant inverse correlation between serum prolactin and BMD (n = 5), 152 (52.1%) of patients were treated with prolactin raising antipsychotics, compared to 197 (48.1%) of patients in those studies which did not identify a significant correlation between prolactin and BMD. Available studies cannot resolve the link between excess prolactin and reduced BMD in schizophrenia. Future studies should be longitudinal in design and combine measures of serum prolactin along with other risk factors for reduced BMD such as smoking and vitamin D and sex hormone levels in assessing the relationship between prolactin and BMD in schizophrenia.
