RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Due to the high costs of conventional mental health care, there has been a rise in the application of web-based technologies in recent years, i.e., telemental health care. We conducted this systematic review in 2017, using high quality research articles on the applications, technologies, advantages and challenges associated with telemental health care published since year 2000. METHODS: We used a combination of relevant key words to search four major databases, such as "Web of Sciences, Embase, PubMed and Science Direct". From among 156 articles, which had been published since 2000, twenty five articles met all of the inclusion criteria and were selected for the final review. The information extracted from these articles were used to construct Tables 1 and 2. Also, the materials derived from 55 credible articles were used as further support and complementary facts to substantiate the information presented in the Discussion section. RESULTS: The findings revealed that telemental health care is an extended domain supportive of conventional mental health services. Currently, telemental health care has multiple capabilities and technologies for providing effective interventions to patients with various mental illnesses. It provides clinicians with a wide variety of innovative choices and strategies for mental interventions, in addition to significant future potentials. CONCLUSIONS: Telemental health care can provide effective and adaptable solutions to the care of mental illnesses universally. While being comparable to in-person services, telemental health care is particularly advantageous and inexpensive through the use of current technologies and adaptable designs, especially in isolated communities.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Picture archiving and communication system (PACS) serves to store, transmit, communicate and manage medical images. A logical evaluation protocol assists to determine whether the system is technically, structurally and operationally fit. The purpose of this systematic review was to propose a logical evaluation protocol for PACS, particularly useful for new hospitals and other healthcare institutions in developing countries. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We systematically reviewed 25 out of 267 full-length articles, published between 2000 and 2017, retrieved from four sources: Science Direct, Scopus, PubMed and Google Scholar. The extracted data were tabulated and reviewed successively by three independent panels of experts that oversaw the design of this study and the process by which the PACS evaluation protocol was systematically developed. RESULTS: The outcome data were ranked by expert panels and analyzed statistically, with the reliability established at 0.82 based on the Pearson's correlation coefficient. The essential components and the best options to establish an optimal PACS were organized under nine main sections: system configuration;system network;data storage; datacompression;image input; image characteristics; image presentation; communication link; and system security, with a total of 20 components, each of which capable of working optimally with one or more program options. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review presents an objective protocol that is an ideal tool for the evaluation of new or existing PACS at healthcare institutions, particularly in developing countries. Despite the significant advantages, the protocol may face minor limitations, largely due to lack of appropriate technical resources in various clinical settings and the host countries.
