Service user experiences and views regarding telemental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A co-produced framework analysis.
Adolescent
Adult
COVID-19
/ epidemiology
Delivery of Health Care
/ methods
Female
Health Personnel
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Male
Mental Health
/ standards
Mental Health Services
/ statistics & numerical data
Middle Aged
Pandemics
Quality of Health Care
/ standards
SARS-CoV-2
/ physiology
Surveys and Questionnaires
/ statistics & numerical data
Telemedicine
/ methods
Young Adult
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
17
02
2021
accepted:
31
08
2021
entrez:
16
9
2021
pubmed:
17
9
2021
medline:
5
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The 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 access to good quality care. Greater understanding is needed of how service users experience telemental health, and what determines whether they engage and find it acceptable. We 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 were identified and extracted. Data collection and analysis used a participatory, coproduction approach where researchers with relevant lived experience, contributed to all stages of data collection, analysis and interpretation of findings alongside clinical and academic researchers. The experiences and preferences regarding telemental health care of the forty-four participants were dynamic and varied across time and settings, as well as between individuals. Participants' preferences were shaped by reasons for contacting services, their relationship with care providers, and both parties' access to technology and their individual preferences. 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 challenges related to safety and privacy in online settings, and gave examples of good remote care strategies they had experienced, including services scheduling regular phone calls and developing guidelines about how to access remote care tools. Participants in our study have highlighted advantages of telemental health care, as well as significant limitations that risk hindering 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 of supporting staff in making effective and collaborative use of relevant technologies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The 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 access to good quality care. Greater understanding is needed of how service users experience telemental health, and what determines whether they engage and find it acceptable.
METHODS
We 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 were identified and extracted. Data collection and analysis used a participatory, coproduction approach where researchers with relevant lived experience, contributed to all stages of data collection, analysis and interpretation of findings alongside clinical and academic researchers.
FINDINGS
The experiences and preferences regarding telemental health care of the forty-four participants were dynamic and varied across time and settings, as well as between individuals. Participants' preferences were shaped by reasons for contacting services, their relationship with care providers, and both parties' access to technology and their individual preferences. 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 challenges related to safety and privacy in online settings, and gave examples of good remote care strategies they had experienced, including services scheduling regular phone calls and developing guidelines about how to access remote care tools.
DISCUSSION
Participants in our study have highlighted advantages of telemental health care, as well as significant limitations that risk hindering 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 of supporting staff in making effective and collaborative use of relevant technologies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34529705
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257270
pii: PONE-D-21-05340
pmc: PMC8445423
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0257270Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Telemed J E Health. 2013 Jun;19(6):444-54
pubmed: 23697504
CNS Drugs. 2002;16(8):527-48
pubmed: 12096934
World J Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 22;6(2):269-82
pubmed: 27354970
Psychol Serv. 2019 Nov;16(4):621-635
pubmed: 29809025
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2021 Jan;56(1):13-24
pubmed: 32804258
Internet Interv. 2020 Apr;20:100317
pubmed: 32289019
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2016 Nov;84(11):923-934
pubmed: 27599225
JAMA Psychiatry. 2020 Dec 1;77(12):1211-1212
pubmed: 32391861
J Subst Abuse Treat. 2019 Jun;101:38-49
pubmed: 31006553
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2021 Jan;56(1):25-37
pubmed: 32857218
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2019 Jun;28(3):657-670
pubmed: 30666762
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2017 Jul;24(4):870-886
pubmed: 27910173
J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Oct;24(9):575-585
pubmed: 28958211
Front Psychiatry. 2020 Feb 11;10:993
pubmed: 32116819
Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2018 Jul 21;20(8):56
pubmed: 30032337
Prev Chronic Dis. 2010 Jan;7(1):A20
pubmed: 20040235
J Telemed Telecare. 2020 Jan-Feb;26(1-2):14-20
pubmed: 30134781
Curr Treat Options Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 2;:1-5
pubmed: 32292687
J Med Internet Res. 2009 Apr 24;11(2):e13
pubmed: 19403466
Schizophr Res. 2020 Aug;222:489-490
pubmed: 32563610
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
Age Ageing. 2020 Oct 23;49(6):901-906
pubmed: 32584954
J Telemed Telecare. 2019 Jul;25(6):327-342
pubmed: 29788807
Med Leg J. 2020 Jul;88(2):73-76
pubmed: 32490713
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 9;22(6):e19264
pubmed: 32463377
Mayo Clin Proc. 2019 Dec;94(12):2510-2523
pubmed: 31806104
Qual Health Res. 2012 Aug;22(8):1126-37
pubmed: 22673090
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2020 Jun;27(3):258-271
pubmed: 31677331
Telemed J E Health. 2016 Feb;22(2):87-113
pubmed: 26624248
JMIR Ment Health. 2018 Mar 16;5(1):e20
pubmed: 29549072
J Law Biosci. 2020 Jun 16;7(1):lsaa043
pubmed: 32843985
J Telemed Telecare. 2013 Sep;19(6):338-46
pubmed: 24163298
Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun;7(6):547-560
pubmed: 32304649
Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Sep;7(9):813-824
pubmed: 32682460
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2020 Sep - Oct;66:89-95
pubmed: 32750604
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2018 Nov;25(6):797-808
pubmed: 30014606
J Psychiatr Pract. 2015 Sep;21(5):389-93
pubmed: 26348806
Int Rev Psychiatry. 2015;27(6):513-24
pubmed: 26540584
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2021 Aug;56(8):1447-1457
pubmed: 33665680
JMIR Ment Health. 2020 Mar 26;7(3):e18848
pubmed: 32213476
Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 10;:20764020932592
pubmed: 32517530
Am Psychol. 2017 Feb-Mar;72(2):159-170
pubmed: 28221067