Implementation, adoption and perceptions of telemental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review - Appleton, Rebecca; Williams, Julie; San Juan, Norha Vera; Needle, Justin J.; Schlief, Merle; Jordan, Harriet; Rains, Luke Sheridan; Goulding, Lucy; Badhan, Monika; Roxburgh, Emily; Barnett, Phoebe; Spyridonidis, Spyros; et al. (medRxiv, 2021)
Background Early 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.Objective To investigate the adoption and impacts of telemental health approaches during the COVID-19 Pandemic, and facilitators and barriers to optimal implementation.Methods Four 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.Results A 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.Conclusions Implementation 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.Competing Interest StatementNS is the director of the London Safety and Training Solutions Ltd, which offers training in patient safety, implementation solutions and human factors to healthcare organisations and the pharmaceutical industry. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.Funding StatementPolicy Research Unit: This paper presents independent research commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme, conducted by the NIHR Policy Research Unit (PRU) in Mental Health. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care or its arms length bodies, or other government departments. Applied Research Collaboration South London and Kings Improvement Science: This study is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration South London (NIHR ARC South London) at Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. NS and LG are members of Kings Improvement Science, which offers co-funding to the NIHR ARC South London and is funded by Kings Health Partners (Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Kings College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust), and Guys and St Thomas Foundation. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the NHS, the charities, or the Department of Health and Social Care. LG is funded by Kings Improvement Science, which is part of the NIHR ARC South London and comprises a specialist team of improvement scientists and senior researchers based at Kings College London. Kings Improvement Science is funded by Kings Health Partners (Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Kings College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust), and the Guys and St Thomas Foundation. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:N/A - systematic reviewAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesN/A - systematic review