Jeanie Tse1, Drew LaStella1, Elisa Chow1, Emily Kingman1, Shoshannah Pearlman1, Linda Valeri1, Hao Wang1, Lisa B Dixon1. 1. Institute for Community Living, New York City (Tse, LaStella, Chow, Kingman, Pearlman, Wang); New York University School of Medicine, New York City (Tse); New York University Silver School of Social Work, New York City (Chow); Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City (Valeri); New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York City (Dixon); Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City (Dixon). Benjamin G. Druss, M.D., M.P.H., served as decision editor on the manuscript.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the acceptability and feasibility of telehealth services shortly after their rapid introduction into a community behavioral health agency as part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Individuals receiving services during May 8-18, 2020, from behavioral health programs that had introduced telehealth in March 2020, were invited to participate in a survey regarding their perceptions of the telehealth services. Ordinal logistic regressions were used to test for differences in survey responses in three ways: between program types, between the 2020 sample and a 2018 sample, and between individuals reported by staff to be distressed or not distressed by the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Of 1,482 survey respondents, >80% reported that their ability to connect to staff, receive support, and get an appointment was at least as great as before the pandemic. Among 80% of respondents indicating interest in continuing remote services after the pandemic ended, 83% preferred a mix of remote and face-to-face services. From February 2020 to April 2020, total service utilization remained stable for treatment, outreach, and housing programs. In addition, mental health-related hospital utilization did not increase. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that telehealth, including telephone-based services, is an acceptable and even preferred service delivery mode for clients with severe mental illness. Continued investigation into the optimal dosing of face-to-face versus remote services in various settings is needed to inform service practice during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the acceptability and feasibility of telehealth services shortly after their rapid introduction into a community behavioral health agency as part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Individuals receiving services during May 8-18, 2020, from behavioral health programs that had introduced telehealth in March 2020, were invited to participate in a survey regarding their perceptions of the telehealth services. Ordinal logistic regressions were used to test for differences in survey responses in three ways: between program types, between the 2020 sample and a 2018 sample, and between individuals reported by staff to be distressed or not distressed by the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Of 1,482 survey respondents, >80% reported that their ability to connect to staff, receive support, and get an appointment was at least as great as before the pandemic. Among 80% of respondents indicating interest in continuing remote services after the pandemic ended, 83% preferred a mix of remote and face-to-face services. From February 2020 to April 2020, total service utilization remained stable for treatment, outreach, and housing programs. In addition, mental health-related hospital utilization did not increase. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that telehealth, including telephone-based services, is an acceptable and even preferred service delivery mode for clients with severe mental illness. Continued investigation into the optimal dosing of face-to-face versus remote services in various settings is needed to inform service practice during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Entities:
Keywords:
Community mental health services; Remote services; Telecommunications; Telehealth; Telepsychiatry
Authors: Juan Pablo Zapata-Ospina; Karla Gil-Luján; Alejandro López-Puerta; Laura Carolina Ospina; Paola Andrea Gutiérrez-Londoño; Alexandra Aristizábal; Mauricio Gómez; Jenny García Journal: Rev Colomb Psiquiatr Date: 2022-05-27
Authors: Lawrence A Palinkas; Jessenia De Leon; Erika Salinas; Sonali Chu; Katharine Hunter; Timothy M Marshall; Eric Tadehara; Christopher M Strnad; Jonathan Purtle; Sarah McCue Horwitz; Mary M McKay; Kimberly E Hoagwood Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 3.390