We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed healthcare significantly and telepsychiatry is now the primary means of treatment in some countries.
Aims
To compare the efficacy of telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment.
Method
A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing telepsychiatry with face-to-face treatment for psychiatric disorders. The primary outcome was the mean change in the standard symptom scale scores used for each psychiatric disorder. Secondary outcomes included all meta-analysable outcomes, such as all-cause discontinuation and safety/tolerability.
Results
We identified 32 studies (n = 3592 participants) across 11 mental illnesses. Disease-specific analyses showed that telepsychiatry was superior to face-to-face treatment regarding symptom improvement for depressive disorders (k = 6 studies, n = 561; standardised mean difference s.m.d. = −0.325, 95% CI −0.640 to −0.011, P = 0.043), whereas face-to-face treatment was superior to telepsychiatry for eating disorder (k = 1, n = 128; s.m.d. = 0.368, 95% CI 0.018–0.717, P = 0.039). No significant difference was seen between telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment when all the studies/diagnoses were combined (k = 26, n = 2290; P = 0.248). Telepsychiatry had significantly fewer all-cause discontinuations than face-to-face treatment for mild cognitive impairment (k = 1, n = 61; risk ratio RR = 0.552, 95% CI 0.312–0.975, P = 0.040), whereas the opposite was seen for substance misuse (k = 1, n = 85; RR = 37.41, 95% CI 2.356–594.1, P = 0.010). No significant difference regarding all-cause discontinuation was seen between telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment when all the studies/diagnoses were combined (k = 27, n = 3341; P = 0.564).
Conclusions
Telepsychiatry achieved a symptom improvement effect for various psychiatric disorders similar to that of face-to-face treatment. However, some superiorities/inferiorities were seen across a few specific psychiatric disorders, suggesting that its efficacy may vary according to disease type.
Videoconferencing in psychiatry allows psychiatric counseling to be dealt remotely. A number of human randomised clinical trials (RCTs) on this topic were conducted but not systematically analysed since 2005.
Objects
A meta-analysis was undertaken to test the hypothesis of non-inferiority of remote psychiatric counseling, including both assessment and treatment, compared to face-to-face setting. Focus of research was the general psychiatric approach, which includes pharmacotherapy, counseling and some not specific psychotherapeutic techniques such as listening, reformulation and clarification among others. Specific forms of psychotherapies were not included in this analysis.
Design
RCTs including ≥ 10 subjects per arm were identified in Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase and the reference list of single papers. A random-effect and a mixed-effect model served for test the hypothesis under analysis.
Results
Twenty-six RCTs were included in the analysis, involving 765 (assessment) and 1585 patients (efficacy). The non-inferiority of remote psychiatric counseling was reported both for assessment and treatment. Heterogeneity could not be excluded for assessment, but was excluded for treatment while taking into account clinical and study related variables (P-values = 0.003 and 0.06, respectively).
Conclusion
High levels of consistency between remote and in vivo psychiatric assessment is reported. Efficacy of remote psychiatric counseling was shown to be not inferior compared to in vivo settings. Heterogeneity could not be excluded for assessment, and further analyses are mandatory. The presence of multiple diagnoses included in the analysis was a limit of the present investigation.
The Telemedicine Spacebridge, a satellite-mediated, audio-video-fax link between four United States and two Armenian and Russian medical centers, permitted remote American consultants to assist Armenian and Russian physicians in the management of medical problems following the December 1988 earthquake in Armenia and the June 1989 gas explosion near Ufa.
Methods:
During 12 weeks of operations, 247 Armenian and Russian and 175 American medical professionals participated in 34 half-day clinical conferences. A total of 209 patients were discussed, requiring expertise in 20 specialty areas.
Results:
Telemedicine consultations resulted in altered diagnoses for 54, new diagnostic studies for 70, altered diagnostic processes for 47 and modified treatment plans for 47 of 185 Armenian patients presented. Simultaneous participation of several US medical centers was judged beneficial; quality of data transmission was judged excellent.
Conclusion:
These results suggest that interactive consultation by remote specialists can provide valuable assistance to on-site physicians and favorably influence clinical decisions in the aftermath of major disasters.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.