Department of Internal Medicine, St. Vincent Charity Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2021 Jun;25(2):195-205. doi: 10.1080/13651501.2020.1846751. Epub 2020 Nov 26.
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.KEY POINTSThe 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.
尽管已有研究考察了远程心理健康项目的有效性,但对于其评估的最佳方法仍不清楚。我们旨在综述用于评估远程心理健康项目的结果。
我们在 PubMed 和 Google Scholar 中进行了文献检索,检索了 2010 年 1 月至 2019 年 10 月期间发表的同行评议研究,排除了综述文章、观点文章、演讲、摘要和无数据的项目报告。
共确定了 1310 篇文章,其中 34 篇进行了综述。研究采用了非临床和临床结果的组合,最常用的是参与率和影响率以及标准化临床指标。很少有研究考察技术可行性、成本效益和定性满意度报告。
这是首次总结评估远程心理健康项目的方法。本文讨论了评估结果的优缺点,强调了在制定未来远程心理健康项目评估的标准化框架时应考虑的关键因素。
评估远程心理健康项目的方法多种多样,不存在衡量成功的金标准。临床和非临床结果被用于评估远程心理健康项目。应更加重视可行性措施,如成本效益。治疗联盟应成为任何远程心理健康项目评估的重要组成部分。需要更长的随访时间和更大的样本量,以及更多样化的人群,以便推广结果。应将临床工具用于评估成功的方法限制为在临床实践中常用的标准化措施。