16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Telemental Health Use in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review and Evidence Gap Mapping

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted telemedicine use for mental illness (telemental health).

          Objective: In the scoping review, we describe the scope and domains of telemental health during the COVID-19 pandemic from the published literature and discuss associated challenges.

          Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the World Health Organization's Global COVID-19 Database were searched up to August 23, 2020 with no restrictions on study design, language, or geographical, following an a priori protocol ( https://osf.io/4dxms/). Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics from the peer-reviewed literature and the National Quality Forum's (NQF) framework for telemental health. Sentiment analysis was also used to gauge patient and healthcare provider opinion toward telemental health.

          Results: After screening, we identified 196 articles, predominantly from high-income countries (36.22%). Most articles were classified as commentaries (51.53%) and discussed telemental health from a management standpoint (86.22%). Conditions commonly treated with telemental health were depression, anxiety, and eating disorders. Where data were available, most articles described telemental health in a home-based setting (use of telemental health at home by patients). Overall sentiment was neutral-to-positive for the individual domains of the NQF framework.

          Conclusions: Our findings suggest that there was a marked growth in the uptake of telemental health during the pandemic and that telemental health is effective, safe, and will remain in use for the foreseeable future. However, more needs to be done to better understand these findings. Greater investment into human and financial resources, and research should be made by governments, global funding agencies, academia, and other stakeholders, especially in low- and middle- income countries. Uniform guidelines for licensing and credentialing, payment and insurance, and standards of care need to be developed to ensure safe and optimal telemental health delivery. Telemental health education should be incorporated into health professions curricula globally. With rapidly advancing technology and increasing acceptance of interactive online platforms amongst patients and healthcare providers, telemental health can provide sustainable mental healthcare across patient populations.

          Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/4dxms/.

          Related collections

          Most cited references219

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

              Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychiatry
                Front Psychiatry
                Front. Psychiatry
                Frontiers in Psychiatry
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-0640
                08 November 2021
                2021
                08 November 2021
                : 12
                : 748069
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Institute for Population Health, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar , Ar-Rayyan, Qatar
                [2] 2Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar , Ar-Rayyan, Qatar
                Author notes

                Edited by: Samrat Singh Bhandari, Sikkim Manipal University, India

                Reviewed by: Sonu Menachem Maimonides Bhaskar, Liverpool Hospital & South West Sydney Local Health District (SWSLHD), Australia; Arunkumar Annamalai, University of Madras, India

                *Correspondence: Amit Abraham ama2006@ 123456qatar-med.cornell.edu

                This article was submitted to Public Mental Health, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry

                †These authors have contributed equally to this work and share last authorship

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyt.2021.748069
                8606591
                34819885
                f6d816be-d8a9-4a52-8712-188855dfe8e6
                Copyright © 2021 Abraham, Jithesh, Doraiswamy, Al-Khawaga, Mamtani and Cheema.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 27 July 2021
                : 15 October 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 221, Pages: 16, Words: 12200
                Categories
                Psychiatry
                Systematic Review

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                covid-19,coronavirus disease,telemedicine,mental health,psychiatry

                Comments

                Comment on this article