Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35641989›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Mental health provider perspectives of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on service delivery: a focus on challenges in remote engagement, suicide risk assessment, and treatment of psychosis.

Lindsay A Bornheimer, Juliann Li Verdugo, Joshua Holzworth, Fonda N Smith, Joseph A Himle

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lindsay A BornheimerUniversity of Michigan, School of Social Work, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. bornheim@umich.edu.
Juliann Li VerdugoUniversity of Michigan, School of Social Work, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Joshua HolzworthUniversity of Michigan, School of Social Work, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Fonda N SmithUniversity of Michigan, School of Social Work, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Joseph A HimleUniversity of Michigan, School of Social Work, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of a cognitive-behavioral suicide prevention-focused intervention tailored to adults diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorders2019R34MH123609 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI BORNHEIMER, LINDSAY ANN · 2020 to 2020
$702k
NIMH NIH HHS R34 MH123609NIMH NIH HHS R34MH123609
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has been impacting the need, utilization, and delivery of mental health services with greater challenges being faced by clients and providers. With many clients facing reduced access to services and social isolation, a focus on suicide risk assessment and prevention is critical. Concern is particularly increased for clients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders given data show suicide rates are disproportionately high for those with psychosis in comparison to the general population. Provider perspectives of challenges in service delivery are needed to inform efforts to improve access, feasibility, and quality of mental health care throughout the evolving pandemic. This study explored mental health provider perspectives of client challenges in service utilization and provider challenges in service delivery, including remote engagement, suicide risk assessment, and treatment of psychosis.

methodsData were collected from social work mental health providers (n = 12) in United States community mental health setting. Providers consented to participate and responded to questions about service delivery experiences in late 2020 and in relation to COVID-19. Demographic and practice-related provider data were explored descriptively using SPSS and qualitative data using open coding and grounded theory methods in Dedoose.

resultsAmong the 9 providers who engaged in remote service delivery, 7 (77.8%) experienced challenges in remote engagement with clients and 8 (88.9%) experienced challenges in treatment of psychosis. Among the 7 providers who engaged in remote suicide assessment, 4(57%) experienced challenges. Qualitative themes emerged including logistic (e.g., technology access and use), engagement (e.g., virtual rapport-building and limited remote services), and clinical (e.g., difficulty assessing suicide risk, internal stimuli, abnormal involuntary movement, and affect) challenges in service delivery.

conclusionsProvider perspectives are essential to inform efforts to build resources and problem-solve challenges and barriers that both providers and clients face throughout various shifts in mental health service delivery. Findings emphasize the need to troubleshoot client access to technology, bolster support for providers to prevent burnout, and greater provider training to improve skills in remote engagement, assessment, and treatment, particularly in relation to psychosis and suicide prevention. Study implications are not only critical for the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, but also in preparation for ongoing shifts in service delivery as technology evolves.

Indexed as

COVID-19Psychotic DisordersSuicide PreventionHumansMental HealthPandemicsRisk AssessmentCommunity mental healthMental healthPsychosisRisk assessmentService deliverySuicide

Identifiers

PMID35641989
PMCPMC9152662
OpenAlexW4281703671

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.