Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37928331›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Preferences for telehealth: A qualitative study with people accessing a new mental health service.

Anne Honey, Monique Hines, Rebecca Barton, Bridget Berry, John Gilroy, Helen Glover, Nicola Hancock, Shifra Waks, Karen Wells

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Navigating the Second Victim Experience in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and Colonoscopy.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. 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.

Anne HoneyFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Monique HinesFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3919-1401
Rebecca BartonFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Bridget BerryFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
John GilroyFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Helen GloverEnlightened Consultants, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
Nicola HancockFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Shifra WaksFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Karen WellsFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To examine preferences for telehealth versus in-person services for people who sought mental health support from an unfamiliar service during the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify the factors that influenced these preferences. Methods: Data are drawn from semi-structured interviews with 45 participants (32 people who accessed mental health services, 7 informal support people, and 6 people who accessed services themselves as well as identifying as informal supports). Data relating to experiences of telehealth, comparisons with in-person services and preferences were coded inductively and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Just over half of the participants in our sample preferred telehealth or at least regarded it as a suitable option. Those who preferred telehealth were more likely to have had direct experience, particularly via videoconferencing, as part of their access to this new mental health service. Reasons for preferring in-person services included belief in the superiority of interpersonal communication in these settings, compatibility with personal communication style and discomfort with technology. Those preferring telehealth cited its convenience, elimination of the need to travel for services, the comfort and safety afforded by accessing services at home and the ability to communicate more openly. Conclusions: Hybrid models of care which harness the unique benefits of both in-person and remote service modalities appear to have a legitimate place in models of mental health care outside of pandemic situations. These results illuminate the potential of telehealth services when engaging with people seeking mental health help for the first time and in situations where existing relationships with service providers have not yet been established.

Indexed as

community mental health supportCOVID-19lived experience perspectivesMental healthtelehealth

Identifiers

PMID37928331
PMCPMC10621303

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.