UNASSIGNED:心理健康紧急热线提供临床支持和服务连接。这篇范围界定综述描述了美国热线电话的最新文献,包括他们达到和没有达到的人口,典型的呼叫量和参与级别,实施的障碍和促进者,和共同的呼叫结果。审查还指出了文献中的差距并提出了建议。
UNASSIGNED:对美国电话的同行评审文章进行系统搜索,文本,2012年1月至2021年12月期间发布的聊天热线检索了1049篇文章。总的来说,96篇文章符合全文审查标准,其中53人符合完全纳入标准。
未经评估:大约一半的纳入研究(N=25)集中在呼叫者的描述性信息上,其中大多数是女性,年轻的成年人,和怀特;资深热线通常会到达年长的男人。打电话的常见原因是自杀,抑郁症,和人际关系问题。在检查干预效果的研究中(N=20),很少评估热线作为干预措施(N=6),很少评估呼叫者行为结果(N=4),热线参与后,报告减少了来电者的痛苦和自杀。然而,这些研究还提出了需要改进的地方,包括覆盖代表性不足的高风险人群。六项研究报告了实施需求,例如在数据收集和评估方面的投资,员工培训,可持续的资金。
UNASISIGNED:热线似乎比其他人群更有效,这表明,为了让代表性不足的高风险人群参与进来,可能需要更深入的外联工作。调查结果还表明,关于热线电话的使用-特别是本地文本和聊天热线电话-与呼叫者结果之间关系的证据有限,突出了进一步调查的领域。
Mental health emergency hotlines provide clinical supports and connection to services. This scoping review describes the current literature on hotlines in the United States, including which populations they do and do not reach, typical call volumes and engagement levels, barriers to and facilitators of implementation, and common call outcomes. The review also identifies gaps in the literature and presents recommendations.
A systematic search of peer-reviewed articles on U.S.-based telephone, text, and chat hotlines published between January 2012 and December 2021 retrieved 1,049 articles. In total, 96 articles met criteria for full-text review, of which 53 met full inclusion criteria.
Approximately half of the included studies (N=25) focused on descriptive information of callers, most of whom were females, younger adults, and White; veteran hotlines typically reached older men. Common reasons for calling were suicidality, depression, and interpersonal problems. Of studies examining intervention effects (N=20), few assessed hotlines as interventions (N=6), and few evaluated caller behavioral outcomes (N=4), reporting reduced distress and suicidality among callers after hotline engagement. However, these studies also suggested areas for improvement, including reaching underrepresented high-risk populations. Six studies reported implementation needs, such as investments in data collection and evaluation, staff training, and sustainable funding.
Hotlines appear to be more effective at reaching some populations than others, indicating that more intensive outreach efforts may be necessary to engage underrepresented high-risk populations. The findings also indicated limited evidence on the relationship between use of hotlines-particularly local text and chat hotlines-and caller outcomes, highlighting an area for further investigation.