Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35986332›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of mental health systems2022

Telehealth service delivery in an Australian regional mental health service during COVID-19: a mixed methods analysis.

Mary Lou Chatterton, Elijah Marangu, Elizabeth M Clancy, Matthew Mackay, Eve Gu, Steve Moylan, Amy Langbein, Melissa O'Shea

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of mental health systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Paramedics: A Missing Workforce in Australia's Mental Health System.The Australian journal of rural health · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors.

Mary Lou ChattertonPublic Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 4, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. m.chatterton@monash.edu.
Elijah MaranguAustralian Nursing & Midwifery Accreditation Council, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Elizabeth M ClancySchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Matthew MackaySchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Eve GuDrugs and Alcohol Service, Barwon Health, Mental Health, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Steve MoylanDrugs and Alcohol Service, Barwon Health, Mental Health, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Amy LangbeinDrugs and Alcohol Service, Barwon Health, Mental Health, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Melissa O'SheaSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOVID-19 required mental health services to quickly switch from face-to-face service delivery to telehealth (telephone and videoconferencing). This evaluation explored implementation of a telehealth mental health response in a regional public mental health provider.

methodsA mixed methods approach, combining service use data, brief satisfaction surveys, and qualitative interviews/focus groups was undertaken. Number and types of contacts from de-identified mental health service data were compared between April-May 2020 and April-May 2019. Mental health consumers and providers completed brief online satisfaction surveys after videoconferencing sessions. Attitudes and perspectives on the implementation of telehealth were further explored by applying a descriptive qualitative framework to the analysis of interview and focus group data supplied by consumers and providers. Template thematic analysis was used to elucidate key themes relating to the barriers and enablers of telehealth uptake and future implementation recommendations.

resultsTotal contacts decreased by 13% from 2019 to 2020. Face-to-face contacts decreased from 55% of total in 2019 to 24% in 2020. In 2019, 45% of contacts were by telephone, increasing to 70% in 2020. Only four videoconferencing contacts were made in 2019; increasing to 886 in 2020. Consumer surveys (n = 26) rated videoconferencing as good or excellent for technical quality (92%), overall experience (86%), and satisfaction with personal comfort (82%). Provider surveys (n = 88) rated technical quality as good or excellent (68%) and 86% could achieve assessment/treatment goals with videoconferencing. Provider focus groups/interviews (n = 32) identified that videoconferencing was well-suited to some clinical tasks. Consumers interviewed (n = 6) endorsed the ongoing availability of telehealth within a blended approach to service delivery. Both groups reflected on videoconferencing limitations due to infrastructure (laptops, phones, internet access), cumbersome platform and privacy concerns, with many reverting to telephone use.

conclusionsWhile videoconferencing increased, technical and other issues led to telephone being the preferred contact method. Satisfaction surveys indicated improvement opportunities in videoconferencing. Investment in user-friendly platforms, telehealth infrastructure and organisational guidelines are needed for successful integration of videoconferencing in public mental health systems.

Indexed as

COVID-19Mental health systemsMixed methodsTelehealth

Identifiers

PMID35986332
PMCPMC9388972

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.