Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34529705›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Service user experiences and views regarding telemental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A co-produced framework analysis.

Norha Vera San Juan, Prisha Shah, Merle Schlief, Rebecca Appleton, Patrick Nyikavaranda, Mary Birken, Una Foye, Brynmor Lloyd-Evans, Nicola Morant, Justin J Needle and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The impact of remote care approaches on continuity in primary care: a mixed-studies systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Digital exclusion in healthcare services: a scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. A qualitative exploration of the psychosocial needs of people living with long-term conditions and their perspectives on online peer support.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Norha Vera San JuanDepartment of Health Service and Population Research, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8677-7341
Prisha ShahNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit COVID-19 Co-Production Group, London, United Kingdom.
Merle SchliefDivision of Psychiatry, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rebecca AppletonDivision of Psychiatry, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Patrick NyikavarandaNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit COVID-19 Co-Production Group, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9896-6078
Mary BirkenDivision of Psychiatry, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Una FoyeDepartment of Health Service and Population Research, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3414-2854
Brynmor Lloyd-EvansDivision of Psychiatry, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Nicola MorantDivision of Psychiatry, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4022-8133
Justin J NeedleDivision of Health Services Research and Management, City University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Alan SimpsonDepartment of Health Service and Population Research, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3286-9846
Natasha LyonsDivision of Psychiatry, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Luke Sheridan RainsDivision of Psychiatry, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Zainab DedatDivision of Psychiatry, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sonia JohnsonDivision of Psychiatry, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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 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.

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 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.

findingsThe 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.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCOVID-19Delivery of Health CareFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMental HealthMental Health ServicesMiddle AgedPandemicsQuality of Health CareSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID34529705
PMCPMC8445423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.