ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Social distancing measures during the COVID-19 pandemic forced an abrupt transformation of treatment delivery for mental health care. In mid-March 2020, nearly all in-person contact was replaced with video conferencing. The pandemic thus offered a natural experiment and a unique opportunity to conduct an observational study of whether alcohol use disorder treatment through video conferencing is non-inferior to in-person treatment. METHODS: In a large urban substance use disorder treatment center in the Netherlands, treatment evaluation is routine practice. Outcome data are regularly collected to support shared decision making and monitor patient progress. For this study, pre-test and post-test data on alcohol use (Measurements in the Addictions for Triage and Evaluation), psychopathology (Depression Anxiety Stress Scales), and quality of life (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life) were used to compare outcomes of cognitive behavioral therapy treatment for three cohorts: patients who received treatment for a primary alcohol use disorder performed prior to (n = 628), partially during (n = 557), and entirely during (n = 653) the COVID-19 lockdown. RESULTS: Outcome was similar across the three cohorts: No inferior outcomes were found for treatments that were conducted predominantly through video conferencing during lockdown or treatments that started in-person, but were continued through video conferencing, compared to in-person treatments that were conducted prior to COVID-19. The number of drop-outs were also similar between cohorts. However, there was a difference in average treatment intensity between cohorts, with treatment partially or fully conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic lasting longer. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment for a primary alcohol use disorder, provided partially or predominantly through video conferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in abstinence rates and secondary outcomes similar to traditional in-person care, in spite of the potentially negative effects of the COVID-related lockdown measures themselves. These results from everyday clinical practice corroborate findings of randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses in which video conferencing appeared non-inferior to in-person care in clinical effectiveness.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The uptake of digital interventions in mental health care (MHC) has been slow, as many therapists and patients believe that in-person contact is essential for establishing a good working relationship and good outcomes in treatment. The public health policies regarding social distancing during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced an abrupt transformation of MHC provisions for outpatients: Since mid-March 2020, nearly all in-person contact was replaced with videoconferencing. The COVID-19 crisis offered a unique opportunity to investigate whether MHC with videoconferencing yields inferior results as compared to in-person interventions. METHOD: In a large urban MHC facility in the Netherlands, measurement-based care is routine practice. Outcome data are regularly collected to support shared decision making and monitor patient progress. For this study, pretest and post-test data were used to compare outcomes for three cohorts: treatments performed prior to, partially during and entirely during the COVID-19 lockdown. Outcomes were compared in two large data sets: Basic MHC (N = 1392) and Specialized MHC (N = 1040). RESULTS: Therapeutic outcomes appeared robust for COVID-19 conditions across the three cohorts: No differences in outcomes were found between treatments that were conducted during lockdown compared to in-person treatments prior to COVID-19, or treatments which started in-person, but needed to be continued by means of videoconferencing. DISCUSSION: Videoconferencing care during the COVID-19 pandemic had similar outcomes compared to traditional in-person care. These real-world results corroborate findings of previous randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses in which videoconferencing and in-person care has been directly compared in terms of clinical effectiveness.
