Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36399859›Full record

SynthesisJournal of psychiatric research2022

Patient and provider perspectives of the implementation of remote consultations for community-dwelling people with mental health conditions: A systematic mixed studies review.

Emer Galvin, Shane Desselle, Blánaid Gavin, Etain Quigley, Mark Flear, Ken Kilbride, Fiona McNicholas, Shane Cullinan, John Hayden

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of psychiatric research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 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. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

9 authors.

Emer GalvinSchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. Electronic address: emergalvin20@rcsi.ie.
Shane DesselleTouro University California, California, USA. Electronic address: sdesselle68@gmail.com.
Blánaid GavinSchool of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Electronic address: blanaid.gavin@ucd.ie.
Etain QuigleyNational University of Ireland, Maynooth, Maynooth, Ireland. Electronic address: etain.quigley@mu.ie.
Mark FlearQueen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom. Electronic address: m.flear@qub.ac.uk.
Ken KilbrideADHD Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. Electronic address: ken@adhdireland.ie.
Fiona McNicholasSchool of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Electronic address: fionamcn2008@gmail.com.
Shane CullinanSchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. Electronic address: shanecullinan@rcsi.ie.
John HaydenSchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. Electronic address: johnhayden@rcsi.ie.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Remote, or tele-, consultations became a necessary form of mental healthcare provision during the COVID-19 pandemic. As the prevalence of mental health problems rises, they may have a role in future mental health services. We aimed to review the literature on patient and provider perspectives on factors influencing the implementation of remote consultations for community-dwelling people with mental health conditions. We searched five electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) for empirical research up to July 13th, 2022. Only studies of synchronous, interactive remote consultations conducted via video, phone, or live-messaging between patients and providers were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We integrated qualitative and quantitative data from 39 studies into a single mixed-methods synthesis. We mapped reported factors to the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Acceptability was generally high among participants, despite concerns about the quality of care and the perceived impeded therapeutic relationship. A prominent facilitator was the increased accessibility and convenience of remote consultations, while lack of appropriate infrastructure and low patient comfort and competence were among the most prevalent barriers. This review highlights the importance of patient preferences and provider buy-in to the future of remote consultations.

Indexed as

COVID-19Mental HealthHumansIndependent LivingPandemicsCommunity mental healthCOVID-19TeleconsultationsTelemedicineTelemental healthTelepsychiatry

Identifiers

PMID36399859
PMCPMC9637462

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.