Evaluation of telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic across service users, carers and clinicians: an international mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND

Worldwide uptake of telepsychiatry accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an evaluation of the opinions, preferences and attitudes to telepsychiatry from service users, carers and clinicians in order to understand how telepsychiatry can be best used in the peri/post-COVID-19 era.

METHODS

This mixed-methods, multicentre, international study of telepsychiatry was set in two sites in England and two in Italy. Survey questionnaires and focus group topic guides were co-produced for each participant group (service users, carers and clinicians).

FINDINGS

In the UK, 906 service users, 117 carers and 483 clinicians, and in Italy, 164 service users, 56 carers and 72 clinicians completed the surveys. In all, 17 service users/carers and 14 clinicians participated in focus groups. Overall, telepsychiatry was seen as convenient in follow-ups with a specific purpose such as medication reviews; however, it was perceived as less effective for establishing a therapeutic relationship or for assessing acutely disturbed mental states. In contrast to clinicians, most service users and carers indicated that telepsychiatry had not improved during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most service users and carers reported that the choice of appointment modality was most often determined by the service or clinician.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

There were circumstances in which telepsychiatry was seen as more suitable than others and clear differences in clinician, carer and service user perspectives on telepsychiatry.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

All stakeholders should be actively engaged in determining a hybrid model of care according to clinical features and service user and carer preferences. Clinicians should be engaged in training programmes on telepsychiatry.

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: AC has received research and consultancy fees from INCiPiT (Italian Network for Paediatric Trials), CARIPLO Foundation, Angelini Pharma and Lundbeck Pharma. There are no conflicts of interest for any of the other authors.