Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41256936›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025

Exploring the acceptability of remote care for people with psychotic disorders in the community: practical challenges and desired features.

Nadia Abdel-Halim, Ronja Kuhn, Sarah Bourdin, Patrick Healey, Victoria Bird, Philip McNamee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Nadia Abdel-HalimUnit for Social and Community Psychiatry, East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Ronja KuhnUnit for Social and Community Psychiatry, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Sarah BourdinUnit for Social and Community Psychiatry, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Patrick HealeySchool of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Victoria BirdInstitute of Public Health & Wellbeing, University of Essex, Essex, United Kingdom.
Philip McNameeUnit for Social and Community Psychiatry, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: People with psychosis are more likely to experience paranoia, which can be worsened by technology use, and have lower digital literacy comparative to the general population and other serious mental illness populations (e.g., recurrent depression). The expedited uptake of remotely delivered mental healthcare by secondary mental health services in the UK in recent years (most notably during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic) provides an opportunity to understand how service users with psychosis, and their clinicians, view the impact of rising digitization within mental health services. This study aimed to explore the present factors encouraging and discouraging the use of remote care options through using the example of a face-to-face intervention, DIALOG+, currently being developed to be delivered remotely. A secondary objective was to identify which requirements need to be met for clinicians and service users to willingly adopt novel remote interventions. Methods: 9 workshop-focus groups were conducted in total, 6 with service users with psychosis (n= 17) and 3 with clinicians (n=21). Participants were recruited from community mental health services from urban (East London) and rural (Cornwall) settings so that comparisons could be made across contexts. Workshop-focus groups were recorded and transcribed before analysis using the framework method. Results: The analysis identified four overarching themes: Factors influencing the acceptability of remote care; Adaptability of remote care for inclusivity; Influence of remote care on therapeutic relationships; and Desirable features in remote care. Discussions: Service users and clinicians did not view remote delivery of care as a completely adequate substitute for in-person care but were receptive to its integration into hybrid models when both patient choice and clinician judgment were respected. The study highlights the need for software design to address resource limitations and individual differences, while considering the influence of training, device availability, and urbanization on remote care implementation.

Indexed as

accessible carepsychosisremote caretherapeutic relationshipuser design

Identifiers

PMID41256936
PMCPMC12620910

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.