ArticleDiscover mental health2024
Remote mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland and the Netherlands: a qualitative study.
Article in Discover mental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Psychosocial problems, daily functioning and help-seeking behaviour of international migrant workers in the Netherlands: A qualitative study to inform the adaptation of a scalable stepped-care intervention.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has increased worldwide mental health conditions, substantially affecting the demand and provision of mental health services. To continue services and safeguard the health and well-being of mental health service users, service providers have responded to the pandemic with the adoption of remote services. The objective of our study was to identify and compare the promoters and challenges of the adoption of remote mental health services experienced by service users in Finland and the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic with help of the FITTE framework.
methodsThe study adopted a qualitative descriptive approach, consisting of in-depth semi-structured interviews with mental health service users in Finland (n = 12) and the Netherlands (n = 13) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative content analysis with both inductive and deductive approach was utilized, and the extended FITTE framework was applied to identify the factors related to the fit between individual, task, technology, and environment that influenced the adoption of remote services.
resultsOverall, the adoption of remote mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic involved several promoters related to easy access to mental health services, support for mental health and well-being, and benefits of the home environment such as not having to leave outside for services and having less risk of getting the corona virus. Most of the challenges were related to lack of non-verbal communication, difficulties with expressing oneself and interpreting others, technological issues, the organization of remote services, usability and suitability of services, affinity of the health professional with the provision of remote services, and the safety and security of remote services.
conclusionsWhile remote services are accessible, support our well-being and mental health and protect us against the coronavirus, our findings also show that face-to-face contact was often indispensable when adopting mental health services. Therefore, the design of future mental health services should include both remote and face-to-face delivery. Further research should be done on blended approaches and on ways in which the challenges and development needs which emerged from this study can be tackled to improve remote mental health services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.