Mental Health Practitioners’ Immediate Practical Response During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Questionnaire Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with increased psychological distress, signaling the need for increased mental health services in the context of stay-at-home policies. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to characterize how mental health practitioners have changed their practices during the pandemic. The authors hypothesize that mental health practitioners would increase tele-mental health services and that certain provider types would be better able to adapt to tele-mental health than others. METHODS: The study surveyed 903 practitioners, primarily psychologists/doctoral-level (Psych/DL) providers, social workers/master's-level (SW/ML) providers, and neuropsychologists employed in academic medical centers or private practices. Differences among providers were examined using Bonferroni-adjusted chi-square tests and one-way Bonferroni-adjusted analyses of covariance. RESULTS: The majority of the 903 mental health practitioners surveyed rapidly adjusted their practices, predominantly by shifting to tele-mental health appointments (n=729, 80.82%). Whereas 80.44% (n=625) were not using tele-mental health in December 2019, only 22.07% (n=188) were not by late March or early April 2020. Only 2.11% (n=19) reported no COVID-19-related practice adjustments. Two-thirds (596/888, 67.10%) reported providing additional therapeutic services specifically to treat COVID-19-related concerns. Neuropsychologists were less likely and Psych/DL providers and SW/ML providers were more likely than expected to transition to tele-mental health (P<.001). Trainees saw fewer patients (P=.01) and worked remotely more than licensed practitioners (P=.03). Despite lower rates of information technology service access (P<.001), private practice providers reported less difficulty implementing tele-mental health than providers in other settings (P<.001). Overall, the majority (530/889, 59.62%) were interested in continuing to provide tele-mental health services in the future. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of mental health providers in this study made practice adjustments in response to COVID-19, predominantly by rapidly transitioning to tele-mental health services. Although the majority reported providing additional therapeutic services specifically to treat COVID-19-related concerns, only a small subset endorsed offering such services to medical providers. This has implications for future practical directions, as frontline workers may begin to seek mental health treatment related to the pandemic. Despite differences in tele-mental health uptake based on provider characteristics, the majority were interested in continuing to provide such services in the future. This may help to expand clinical services to those in need via tele-mental health beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».