RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
BackgroundThe prominence of telemental health, including providing care by video call and telephone, has greatly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there are clear variations in uptake and acceptability, and concerns that digital exclusion may exacerbate previous inequalities in accessing good quality care. Greater understanding is needed of how service users experience telemental health, and what determines whether they engage and find it acceptable. MethodsWe conducted a collaborative framework analysis of data from semi-structured interviews with a sample of people already experiencing mental health problems prior to the pandemic. Data relevant to participants experiences and views regarding telemental health during the pandemic was identified and extracted. Data collection and analysis used a participatory, coproduction approach where lived experience researchers, clinical and academic researchers contributed to all stages of data collection, analysis and interpretation of findings. FindingsParticipants experiences and preferences regarding telemental health care were dynamic and varied across time, settings, and individuals. Participants preferences were shaped by the reason for contacting providers, their relationship with the care provider, and both parties access or acceptability to use remote technology. While face-to-face care tended to be the preferred option, participants identified benefits of remote care including making care more accessible for some populations and improved efficiency for functional appointments such as prescription reviews. Participants highlighted important new challenges around safety and privacy in online settings, and gave examples of good remote care strategies, including scheduling regular phone calls and developing guidelines about how to access remote care tools. DiscussionParticipants in our study and previous literature have highlighted advantages of telemental health care, as well as significant limitations which hinder mental health support and exacerbate inequalities in access to services. Some of these limitations are seen as potentially removable, for example through staff training or better digital access for staff or service users. Others indicate a need to maintain traditional face-to-face contact at least for some appointments. There is a clear need for care to be flexible and individualised to service user circumstances and preferences. Further research is needed on ways of minimising digital exclusion and to support staff in making effective and collaborative use of relevant technologies.
