UNASSIGNED: To conduct a systematic literature review of education and training (E&T) programs for telemental health (TMH) providers in the past 10 years to qualitatively clarify field offerings and methodologies, as well as identify areas for future growth.
UNASSIGNED: We searched five major electronic databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science for original publications on TMH E&T from January 2013 to May 2023. We extracted information from each publication and summarized key features of training programs including setting, target group, study aims, training modality, methods of assessing quality, and outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 20 articles were selected for the final review. Articles meeting inclusionary criteria were predominantly comprised of case studies and commentaries, focused on a TMH service/practice for a specific region/population, and were performed after 2020. All of the selected studies demonstrated a significant increase in the measured knowledge, skills, and abilities of the participants after TMH training. Nevertheless, there remains a lack of standardization of training methodologies, limited sample sizes and demographics, variability in study methodologies, and inconsistency of competency targets across studies.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review highlighted the diversity of methods for TMH E&T. Future research on this topic could include more varied and larger-scale studies to further validate and extend current findings, as well as explore potential long-term effects of TMH training programs on both provider attitudes and patient outcomes.

UNASSIGNED: A quantitative synthesis of online psychotherapies\' effectiveness in managing COVID-19 related distress is lacking. This study aimed to estimate online psychological interventions\' effectiveness and associated factors on COVID-19 related psychological distress.
UNASSIGNED: Multi-databases including PubMed, EBSCO, ProQuest, and Cochrane were searched repeatedly till the end of June 2022. Hand-picking was also utilized for relevant papers. Depression, anxiety, stress, and quality of sleep were evaluated as outcomes. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane tool. Data analyses were conducted through Review Manager (version 5.4.1).
UNASSIGNED: A total of 13 studies involving 1,897 participants were included for meta-analysis. Results showed that online psychotherapy significantly reduced the levels of depression [standard mean difference, SMD = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.69, -0.20)], anxiety [SMD = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.99, -0.36)], and stress [SMD = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.11, -0.34)], but not quality of sleep [SMD = -0.53, 95% CI (-1.23, 0.17)]. In addition, guided therapies were more effective than self-help ones on reducing levels of anxiety (χ2 = 5.58, p = 0.02, and I 2 = 82.1%), and ≤ 2 weeks\' daily interventions were more effective on treating depression than 2-month weekly interventions (χ2 = 7.97, p = 0.005, I 2 = 87.5%).
UNASSIGNED: Online psychological interventions effectively reduced COVID-19 related depression, anxiety, and stress levels, and the effectiveness was influenced by settings like guidance and duration and frequency.
UNASSIGNED: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-7-0081/, identifier: INPLASY202270081.

Access to psychiatric care is critical for patients discharged from hospital psychiatric units to ensure continuity of care. When face-to-face follow-up is unavailable or undesirable, telepsychiatry becomes a promising alternative. This study aimed to investigate hospital- and county-level characteristics associated with telepsychiatry adoption.
Cross-sectional national data of 3475 acute care hospitals were derived from the 2017 American Hospital Association Annual Survey. Generalized linear regression models were used to identify characteristics associated with telepsychiatry adoption.
About one-sixth (548 [15.8%]) of hospitals reported having telepsychiatry with a wide variation across states. Rural noncore hospitals were less likely to adopt telepsychiatry (8.3%) than hospitals in rural micropolitan (13.6%) and urban counties (19.4%). Hospitals with both outpatient and inpatient psychiatric care services (marginal difference [95% CI]: 16.0% [12.1% to 19.9%]) and hospitals only with outpatient psychiatric services (6.5% [3.7% to 9.4%]) were more likely to have telepsychiatry than hospitals with neither psychiatric services. Federal hospitals (48.9% [32.5 to 65.3%]), system-affiliated hospitals (3.9% [1.2% to 6.6%]), hospitals with larger bed size (Quartile IV vs. I: 6.2% [0.7% to 11.6%]), and hospitals with greater ratio of Medicaid inpatient days to total inpatient days (Quartile IV vs. I: 4.9% [0.3% to 9.4%]) were more likely to have telepsychiatry than their counterparts. Private non-profit hospitals (- 6.9% [- 11.7% to - 2.0%]) and hospitals in counties designated as whole mental health professional shortage areas (- 6.6% [- 12.7% to - 0.5%]) were less likely to have telepsychiatry.
Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, telepsychiatry adoption in US hospitals was low with substantial variations by urban and rural status and by state in 2017. This raises concerns about access to psychiatric services and continuity of care for patients discharged from hospitals.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telemedicine as a way to reduce COVID-19 infections was noted and consequently deregulated. However, the degree of telemedicine regulation varies from country to country, which may alter the widespread use of telemedicine. This study aimed to clarify the telepsychiatry regulations for each collaborating country/region before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
We used snowball sampling within a global network of international telepsychiatry experts. Thirty collaborators from 17 different countries/regions responded to a questionnaire on barriers to the use and implementation of telepsychiatric care, including policy factors such as regulations and reimbursement at the end of 2019 and as of May 2020.
Thirteen of 17 regions reported a relaxation of regulations due to the pandemic; consequently, all regions surveyed stated that telepsychiatry was now possible within their public healthcare systems. In some regions, restrictions on prescription medications allowed via telepsychiatry were eased, but in 11 of the 17 regions, there were still restrictions on prescribing medications via telepsychiatry. Lower insurance reimbursement amounts for telepsychiatry consultations v. in-person consultations were reevaluated in four regions, and consequently, in 15 regions telepsychiatry services were reimbursed at the same rate (or higher) than in-person consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Our results confirm that, due to COVID-19, the majority of countries surveyed are altering telemedicine regulations that had previously restricted the spread of telemedicine. These findings provide information that could guide future policy and regulatory decisions, which facilitate greater scale and spread of telepsychiatry globally.

Objective: To explore and summarize (1) the existing digital health applications in mental health care (MHC) for immigrants and refugees and its outcomes; (2) how the ethical standards of digital health applications in MHC are implemented and reported; and (3) the challenges for scaling up digital health applications in MHC for immigrants and refugees. Methods: This review adopted a rapid review methodology. Available literature was searched in three online databases January 1, 2005, to February 28, 2019. Studies were included if they (1) applied digital health technologies, (2) focused on immigrants, refugees, or asylum seekers without age and country limitation, (3) reported nonclinical and/or clinical outcomes, and (4) were published in English or Indonesian. Narrative synthesis was developed based on the data extraction and quality assessment. Results: A total of 16 studies were reviewed that applied software, website, and videoconferencing technologies. These applications were applied in various stages of MHC (screening, assessment, diagnosis, and intervention). Participants reported satisfaction and positive attitudes toward applications of digital health in MHC, and positive improvement on their anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. However, the ethical standards of these digital health applications were poorly implemented and reported. Stigma toward mental disorders and lack of technology literacy were the main challenges in scaling up digital health applications for immigrants and refugees. Conclusion: Digital health applications in MHC are promising innovations that can improve the wellbeing of immigrants and refugees. As these technologies expand, ethical standards of practice and reporting need to be improved in delivering scalable digital MHC for immigrants and refugees.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。