Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35767691›Full record

ReviewInteractive journal of medical research2022

Synthesis of the Evidence on What Works for Whom in Telemental Health: Rapid Realist Review.

Merle Schlief, Katherine R K Saunders, Rebecca Appleton, Phoebe Barnett, Norha Vera San Juan, Una Foye, Rachel Rowan Olive, Karen Machin, Prisha Shah, Beverley Chipp and 18 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Interactive journal of medical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. 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

28 authors.

Merle Schlief *NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3744-6260
Katherine R K Saunders *NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8484-0888
Rebecca AppletonNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4097-3512
Phoebe BarnettNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6521-3101
Norha Vera San JuanNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8677-7341
Una FoyeNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3414-2854
Rachel Rowan OliveNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit Lived Experience Working Group, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0871-9859
Karen MachinNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit Lived Experience Working Group, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0374-4238
Prisha ShahNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit Lived Experience Working Group, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7169-1799
Beverley ChippNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit Lived Experience Working Group, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2890-8542
Natasha LyonsNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1635-0681
Camilla TamworthNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7032-4436
Karen PersaudNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit Lived Experience Working Group, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0182-7141
Monika BadhanCamden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6459-2194
Carrie-Ann BlackSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7203-3862
Jacqueline SinCentre for Mental Health Research, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0590-7165
Simon RichesSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1427-5561
Tom GrahamCentre for Anxiety Disorders & Trauma, South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9220-6094
Jeremy GreeningCamden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5345-2463
Farida PiraniPsychological Medicine & Older Adult Directorate, South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3539-7514
Raza GriffithsNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit Lived Experience Working Group, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2802-8673
Tamar JeynesNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit Lived Experience Working Group, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2184-155X
Rose McCabeCentre for Mental Health Research, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2041-7383
Brynmor Lloyd-EvansNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9866-788X
Alan SimpsonNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3286-9846
Justin J NeedleCentre for Health Services Research, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0727-1391
Kylee TrevillionNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5865-4726
Sonia JohnsonNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2219-1384

Funding

Medical Research Council G0401323
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTelemental health (delivering mental health care via video calls, telephone calls, or SMS text messages) is becoming increasingly widespread. Telemental health appears to be useful and effective in providing care to some service users in some settings, especially during an emergency restricting face-to-face contact, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, important limitations have been reported, and telemental health implementation risks the reinforcement of pre-existing inequalities in service provision. If it is to be widely incorporated into routine care, a clear understanding is needed of when and for whom it is an acceptable and effective approach and when face-to-face care is needed.

objectiveThis rapid realist review aims to develop a theory about which telemental health approaches work (or do not work), for whom, in which contexts, and through what mechanisms.

methodsRapid realist reviewing involves synthesizing relevant evidence and stakeholder expertise to allow timely development of context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations in areas where evidence is urgently needed to inform policy and practice. The CMO configurations encapsulate theories about what works for whom and by what mechanisms. Sources included eligible papers from 2 previous systematic reviews conducted by our team on telemental health; an updated search using the strategy from these reviews; a call for relevant evidence, including "gray literature," to the public and key experts; and website searches of relevant voluntary and statutory organizations. CMO configurations formulated from these sources were iteratively refined, including through discussions with an expert reference group, including researchers with relevant lived experience and frontline clinicians, and consultation with experts focused on three priority groups: children and young people, users of inpatient and crisis care services, and digitally excluded groups.

resultsA total of 108 scientific and gray literature sources were included. From our initial CMO configurations, we derived 30 overarching CMO configurations within four domains: connecting effectively; flexibility and personalization; safety, privacy, and confidentiality; and therapeutic quality and relationship. Reports and stakeholder input emphasized the importance of personal choice, privacy and safety, and therapeutic relationships in telemental health care. The review also identified particular service users likely to be disadvantaged by telemental health implementation and a need to ensure that face-to-face care of equivalent timeliness remains available. Mechanisms underlying the successful and unsuccessful application of telemental health are discussed.

conclusionsService user choice, privacy and safety, the ability to connect effectively, and fostering strong therapeutic relationships need to be prioritized in delivering telemental health care. Guidelines and strategies coproduced with service users and frontline staff are needed to optimize telemental health implementation in real-world settings.

trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); CRD42021260910; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021260910.

Indexed as

childrenCOVID-19digital consultationdigital exclusionfrontline staffgray literaturehealth care staffinpatientmental healthmobile phonerapid realist reviewrealist reviewremote caretelemedicinetelemental healththerapyvirtual care

Identifiers

PMID35767691
PMCPMC9524537

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.