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
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 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 32%
15.2%
2
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 11%
11.0%
3
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
based on 10 papers
Top 0.1%
7.5%
4
Journal of Medical Internet Research
based on 81 papers
Top 2%
6.3%
5
JMIRx Med
based on 29 papers
Top 0.3%
5.2%
6
Journal of General Internal Medicine
based on 19 papers
Top 0.5%
4.6%
7
JMIR Formative Research
based on 31 papers
Top 0.8%
4.6%
50% of probability mass above
8
Frontiers in Public Health
based on 135 papers
Top 7%
4.4%
9
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 4%
4.4%
10
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
based on 10 papers
Top 0.1%
2.8%
11
BMC Health Services Research
based on 43 papers
Top 2%
2.8%
12
PLOS Medicine
based on 95 papers
Top 6%
2.4%
13
BMJ Mental Health
based on 15 papers
Top 0.6%
2.3%
14
Journal of Affective Disorders
based on 72 papers
Top 4%
1.7%
15
BMJ Global Health
based on 95 papers
Top 9%
1.6%
16
SSM - Population Health
based on 17 papers
Top 1%
1.3%
17
eClinicalMedicine
based on 55 papers
Top 3%
1.3%
18
BMJ Open Quality
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
1.2%
19
Trials
based on 24 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
20
Frontiers in Digital Health
based on 18 papers
Top 4%
0.8%
21
PLOS Digital Health
based on 88 papers
Top 12%
0.8%
22
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
based on 11 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
23
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
based on 53 papers
Top 7%
0.7%
24
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
based on 116 papers
Top 25%
0.7%
25
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
based on 16 papers
Top 5%
0.7%
26
JMIR Research Protocols
based on 18 papers
Top 4%
0.7%