A review of evaluation approaches for telemental health programs.
Saved in:
| Title: | A review of evaluation approaches for telemental health programs. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Haidous, Mohammad, Tawil, Michel, Naal, Hady, Mahmoud, Hossam |
| Source: | International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice. Jun2021, Vol. 25 Issue 2, p195-205. 11p. |
| Subjects: | Evaluation of human services programs, Mental health services, Telemedicine |
| Abstract: | Although studies have examined the effectiveness of telemental health programs, optimal approaches for their evaluation remain unclear. We sought to review the outcomes used to evaluate telemental health programs. We conducted a literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed studies published between January 2010 until October 2019, and we excluded review articles, opinion papers, presentations, abstracts, and program report without data. 1310 articles were identified, 34 of which were reviewed. Studies used a combination of non-clinical and clinical outcomes, most commonly engagement and impact rates, and standardised clinical measures. Very few studies examined technological feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and qualitative satisfaction reports. This review is the first to summarise approaches to evaluate telemental health programs. Strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation outcomes are discussed in this review, highlighting essential factors that should be taken into consideration when developing a standardised framework for the evaluation of future telemental health programs. The methods used to evaluate telemental health programs are varied and no gold-standard for measurement of success exists. Clinical and non-clinical outcomes are being used to evaluate telemental health programs. More emphasis should be placed on feasibility measures such as cost-effectiveness. Therapeutic alliance should be a crucial part of evaluation of any telemental health program. Longer follow up times and larger sample sizes, as well as more diverse populations, are needed to generalise outcomes. Utilisation of clinical tools to assess success should be limited to standardised measures commonly used in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
Be the first to leave a comment!
