Back

Therapy Without Borders: A Systematic Review on Telehealth's Role in Expanding Mental Health Access

Swint, J.; Fischer, M.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, X.

2024-07-31 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2024.07.30.24311208 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of telehealth services in mental healthcare. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of telehealth interventions for mental health conditions compared to traditional face-to-face treatment. MethodsWe searched major electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) for randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 2023. Studies comparing telehealth interventions to face-to-face treatment for adults with mental health disorders were included. Two independent reviewers assessed study quality and extracted data. Meta-analyses were conducted where appropriate. ResultsThirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 4,827 participants across various mental health conditions. Telehealth interventions demonstrated non-inferiority to face-to-face treatment for depression (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.09]) and anxiety disorders (SMD = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.07]). For post-traumatic stress disorder, telehealth showed a small but significant advantage (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.37, -0.05]). Patient satisfaction and therapeutic alliance were comparable between telehealth and face-to-face interventions. However, dropout rates were slightly higher in telehealth conditions (risk ratio = 1.27, 95% CI [1.11, 1.46]). ConclusionThis review suggests that telehealth interventions are generally as effective as face-to-face treatment for common mental health disorders. While promising, these findings should be interpreted cautiously due to heterogeneity in study designs and interventions. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and strategies to improve engagement in telehealth settings.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.