Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35360958›Full record

ArticleThe Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry2023

Telehealth use by mental health professionals during COVID-19.

Louise M Farrer, Bonnie Clough, Marthinus J Bekker, Alison L Calear, Aliza Werner-Seidler, Jill M Newby, Vikki Knott, Piers Gooding, Julia Reynolds, Leah Brennan and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Client perspectives: Telehealth for mental health services.Australasian psychiatry : bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Louise M FarrerCentre for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5694-4631
Bonnie CloughSchool of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8556-4360
Marthinus J BekkerSchool of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Alison L CalearCentre for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia.
Aliza Werner-SeidlerBlack Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jill M NewbyBlack Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Vikki KnottAustralian College of Applied Psychology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Piers GoodingMelbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia.
Julia ReynoldsResearch School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Leah BrennanSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Philip J BatterhamCentre for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4547-6876
Australian National University · AUBlack Dog Institute · AUAustralian College of Applied Psychology · AUGriffith University · AULa Trobe University · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine and describe telehealth use and attitudes among mental health professionals in Australia and New Zealand during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsParticipants completed a brief online survey between May and July 2020. Participants were recruited via peak and professional organisations and through psychology-focused social media groups and networks. The survey examined frequency of telehealth use, reasons for non-use, telehealth modalities, prior use, attitudes towards use, plans for future use, and training, information or resource needs.

resultsA total of 528 professionals (85.2% female) participated in the survey, of which 98.9% reported using telehealth and 32.2% reported using telehealth exclusively. Respondents were less likely to use telehealth if they worked with clients experiencing complex issues (e.g. trauma), had more hours of weekly client contact, had a choice about whether to use telehealth or felt less positive about using technology. Respondents were more likely to hold positive views towards telehealth if they were female, had used online programmes with clients previously, were frequent telehealth users and were comfortable using technology. Participants expressed mixed views on client safety and the impact of telehealth on therapeutic process and effectiveness.

conclusionTelehealth has a clear and ongoing role within mental healthcare and there is a need for strong guidance for professionals on how to manage client risk, privacy, security and adapt therapy for delivery via telehealth. In particular, there is a need for individual-, organisational-, professional- and policy-level responses to ensure that telehealth remains a viable and effective healthcare medium into the future.

Indexed as

COVID-19TelemedicineFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMental HealthPandemicsCOVID-19implementationmental healthTelehealth

Identifiers

PMID35360958
PMCPMC10080222
OpenAlexW4220654150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.