Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35994310›Full record

ReviewJMIR mental health2022

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Global Delivery of Mental Health Services and Telemental Health: Systematic Review.

Caroline Zangani, Edoardo G Ostinelli, Katharine A Smith, James S W Hong, Orla Macdonald, Gurpreet Reen, Katherine Reid, Charles Vincent, Rebecca Syed Sheriff, Paul J Harrison and 6 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR mental health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Big data and psychiatry: advances, constraints and future directions.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. BDJournal of affective disorders · 2025
    Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. E-Mental Health Interventions in Inpatient Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

16 authors.

Caroline ZanganiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5883-0638
Edoardo G OstinelliDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8717-0832
Katharine A SmithDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2679-1472
James S W HongDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8864-6292
Orla MacdonaldOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2774-0001
Gurpreet ReenDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2634-6662
Katherine ReidOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5958-7908
Charles VincentDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0270-0222
Rebecca Syed SheriffDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5934-6722
Paul J HarrisonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6719-1126
Keith HawtonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4985-5715
Alexandra PitmanDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9742-1359
Rob BaleOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4338-5954
Seena FazelDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5383-5365
John R GeddesDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5281-5960
Andrea CiprianiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5179-8321

Funding

Medical Research Council G0802441
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic required mental health services around the world to adapt quickly to the new restrictions and regulations put in place to reduce the risk of transmission. As face-to-face contact became difficult, virtual methods were implemented to continue to safely provide mental health care. However, it is unclear to what extent service provision transitioned to telemental health worldwide.

objectiveWe aimed to systematically review the global research literature on how mental health service provision adapted during the first year of the pandemic.

methodsWe searched systematically for quantitative papers focusing on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health services published until April 13, 2021, in the PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, and bioXriv electronic bibliographic databases, using the COVID-19 Open Access Project online platform. The screening process and data extraction were independently completed by at least two authors, and any disagreement was resolved by discussion with a senior member of the team. The findings were summarized narratively in the context of each country's COVID-19 Stringency Index, which reflects the stringency of a government's response to COVID-19 restrictions at a specific time.

resultsOf the identified 24,339 records, 101 papers were included after the screening process. Reports on general services (n=72) showed that several countries' face-to-face services reduced their activities at the start of the pandemic, with reductions in the total number of delivered visits and with some services forced to close. In contrast, telemental health use rapidly increased in many countries across the world at the beginning of the pandemic (n=55), with almost complete virtualization of general and specialistic care services by the end of the first year. Considering the reported COVID-19 Stringency Index values, the increased use of virtual means seems to correspond to periods when the Stringency Index values were at their highest in several countries. However, due to specific care requirements, telemental health could not be used in certain subgroups of patients, such as those on clozapine or depot treatments and those who continued to need face-to-face visits.

conclusionsDuring the pandemic, mental health services had to adapt quickly in the short term, implementing or increasing the use of telemental health services across the globe. Limited access to digital means, poor digital skills, and patients' preferences and individual needs may have contributed to differences in implementing and accessing telemental health services during the pandemic. In the long term, a blended approach, combining in-person and virtual modalities, that takes into consideration the needs, preferences, and digital skills of patients may better support the future development of mental health services. It will be required to improve confidence with digital device use, training, and experience in all modalities for both clinicians and service users.

Indexed as

coronavirusCOVID-19face-to-facemental health servicestelemental healthtelepsychiatry

Identifiers

PMID35994310
PMCPMC9400843

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.