Telemental health for clinical assessment and treatment

Digital psychiatry in low-and-middle-income countries: New developments and the way forward

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) bear the greater share of the global mental health burden but are ill-equipped to deal with it because of severe resource constraints leading to a large treatment gap. The remote provision of mental health services by digital means can effectively augment conventional services in LMICs to reduce the treatment gap. Digital psychiatry in LMICs has always lagged behind high-income countries, but there have been encouraging developments in the last decade. There is increasing research on the efficacy of digital psychiatric interventions. However, the evidence is not adequate to conclude that digital psychiatric interventions are invariably effective in LMICs. A striking development has been the rise in mobile and smartphone ownership in LMICs, which has driven the increasing use of mobile technologies to deliver mental health services. An innovative use of mobile technologies has been to optimize task-shifting, which involves delivering mental healthcare services in community settings using non-specialist health professionals. Emerging evidence from LMICs shows that it is possible to use digital tools to train non-specialist workers effectively and ensure that the psychosocial interventions they deliver are efficacious. Despite these promising developments, many barriers such as service costs, underdeveloped infrastructure, lack of trained professionals, and significant disparities in access to digital services impede the progress of digital psychiatry in LMICs. To overcome these barriers, digital psychiatric services in LMICs should address contextual factors influencing the delivery of digital services, ensure collaboration between different stakeholders, and focus on reducing the digital divide.

Assessing the Impact of Evidence-Based Mental Health Guidance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review and Qualitative Evaluation

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Oxford Precision Psychiatry Lab (OxPPL) developed open-access web-based summaries of mental health care guidelines (OxPPL guidance) in key areas such as digital approaches and telepsychiatry, suicide and self-harm, domestic violence and abuse, perinatal care, and vaccine hesitancy and prioritization in the context of mental illness, to inform timely clinical decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the practice of creating evidence-based health guidelines during health emergencies using the OxPPL guidance as an example. An international network of clinical sites and colleagues (in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom) including clinicians, researchers, and experts by experience aimed to (1) evaluate the clinical impact of the OxPPL guidance, as an example of an evidence-based summary of guidelines; (2) review the literature for other evidence-based summaries of COVID-19 guidelines regarding mental health care; and (3) produce a framework for response to future global health emergencies.

METHODS

The impact and clinical utility of the OxPPL guidance were assessed using clinicians' feedback via an international survey and focus groups. A systematic review (protocol registered on Open Science Framework) identified summaries or syntheses of guidelines for mental health care during and after the COVID-19 pandemic and assessed the accuracy of the methods used in the OxPPL guidance by identifying any resources that the guidance had not included.

RESULTS

Overall, 80.2% (146/182) of the clinicians agreed or strongly agreed that the OxPPL guidance answered important clinical questions, 73.1% (133/182) stated that the guidance was relevant to their service, 59.3% (108/182) said that the guidelines had or would have a positive impact on their clinical practice, 42.9% (78/182) that they had shared or would share the guidance, and 80.2% (146/182) stated that the methodology could be used during future health crises. The focus groups found that the combination of evidence-based knowledge, clinical viewpoint, and visibility was crucial for clinical implementation. The systematic review identified 2543 records, of which 2 syntheses of guidelines met all the inclusion criteria, but only 1 (the OxPPL guidance) used evidence-based methodology. The review showed that the OxPPL guidance had included the majority of eligible guidelines, but 6 were identified that had not been included.

CONCLUSIONS

The study identified an unmet need for web-based, evidence-based mental health care guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The OxPPL guidance was evaluated by clinicians as having a real-world clinical impact. Robust evidence-based methodology and expertise in mental health are necessary, but easy accessibility is also needed, and digital technology can materially help. Further health emergencies are inevitable and now is the ideal time to prepare, including addressing the training needs of clinicians, patients, and carers, especially in areas such as telepsychiatry and digital mental health. For future planning, guidance should be widely disseminated on an international platform, with allocated resources to support adaptive updates.

Choosing Or Losing In Behavioral Health: A Study Of Patients' Experiences Selecting Telehealth Versus In-Person Care

It is not known how the growth of telehealth has affected patients' choice of visit modalities (telehealth versus in person). In 2023 we conducted a mixed-methods study that paired a nationally representative survey of 2,071 adults (including 571 who used behavioral health services) and semistructured interviews with twenty-six people with depression or bipolar disorder. We explored patients' experiences with visit modality selection and their agency in the decision. Approximately one-third of patients receiving therapy or medication visits reported that their clinicians did not offer both modalities. Thirty-two percent reported that they did not typically receive their preferred modality, and 45 percent did not believe that their clinician considered their modality preferences. Qualitative findings revealed that some clinicians did not elicit patients' modality preferences. Perceived lack of choice affected satisfaction and rapport with clinicians and encouraged some people to seek care elsewhere. These findings highlight trade-offs in policies to preserve patient choice and approaches that clinicians can take to identify and accommodate patients' preferences.

Digital mental health: challenges and next steps

Digital innovations in mental health offer great potential, but present unique challenges. Using a consensus development panel approach, an expert, international, cross-disciplinary panel met to provide a framework to conceptualise digital mental health innovations, research into mechanisms and effectiveness and approaches for clinical implementation. Key questions and outputs from the group were agreed by consensus, and are presented and discussed in the text and supported by case examples in an accompanying appendix. A number of key themes emerged. (1) Digital approaches may work best across traditional diagnostic systems: we do not have effective ontologies of mental illness and transdiagnostic/symptom-based approaches may be more fruitful. (2) Approaches in clinical implementation of digital tools/interventions need to be creative and require organisational change: not only do clinicians and patients need training and education to be more confident and skilled in using digital technologies to support shared care decision-making, but traditional roles need to be extended, with clinicians working alongside digital navigators and non-clinicians who are delivering protocolised treatments. (3) Designing appropriate studies to measure the effectiveness of implementation is also key: including digital data raises unique ethical issues, and measurement of potential harms is only just beginning. (4) Accessibility and codesign are needed to ensure innovations are long lasting. (5) Standardised guidelines for reporting would ensure effective synthesis of the evidence to inform clinical implementation. COVID-19 and the transition to virtual consultations have shown us the potential for digital innovations to improve access and quality of care in mental health: now is the ideal time to act.

Trans-diagnostic determinants of psychotherapeutic treatment response: The pressing need and new opportunities for a more systematic way of selecting psychotherapeutic treatment in the age of virtual service delivery

Numerous forms of psychotherapy have demonstrated effectiveness for individuals with specific mental disorders. It is, therefore, the task of the clinician to choose the most appropriate therapeutic approach for any given client to maximize effectiveness. This can prove to be a difficult task due to at least three considerations: (1) there is no treatment approach, method or model that works well on all patients, even within a particular diagnostic class; (2) several treatments are equally efficacious (i.e., more likely to be effective than no treatment at all) when considered only in terms of the patient's diagnosis; and (3) effectiveness in the real-world therapeutic setting is determined by a host of non-diagnostic factors. Typically, consideration of these latter, trans-diagnostic factors is unmethodical or altogether excluded from treatment planning - often resulting in suboptimal patient care, inappropriate clinic resource utilization, patient dissatisfaction with care, patient demoralization/hopelessness, and treatment failure. In this perspective article, we argue that a more systematic research on and clinical consideration of trans-diagnostic factors determining psychotherapeutic treatment outcome (i.e., treatment moderators) would be beneficial and - with the seismic shift toward online service delivery - is more feasible than it used to be. Such a transition toward more client-centered care - systematically considering variables such as sociodemographic characteristics, patient motivation for change, self-efficacy, illness acuity, character pathology, trauma history when making treatment choices - would result in not only decreased symptom burden and improved quality of life but also better resource utilization in mental health care and improved staff morale reducing staff burnout and turnover.