Therapists’ Experience of Video Consultation in Specialized Mental Health Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Interview Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: As part of political and professional development with increased focus on including service users within mental health services, these services are being transformed. Specifically, they are shifting from institutional to noninstitutional care provision with increased integration of the use of electronic health and digitalization. In the period from March to May 2020, COVID-19 restrictions forced rapid changes in the organization and provision of mental health services through the increased use of digital solutions in therapy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and advance comprehensive knowledge about how therapists experience the use of video consultation (VC). To reach this objective, we evaluated therapists' experiences of using VC in specialized mental health services in the early phase of COVID-19 restrictions. The following questions were explored through interviews: Which opportunities and challenges appeared when using VC during the period of COVID-19 restrictions? In a short-term care pathway, for whom does VC work and for whom does it not work? METHODS: This study employed a qualitative approach based on an abductive strategy and hermeneutic-phenomenological methodology. Therapists and managers in mental health departments in a hospital were interviewed via Skype for Business from March to May 2020, using a thematic interview guide that aimed to encourage reflections on the use of VC during COVID-19 restrictions. RESULTS: Therapists included in this study experienced advantages in using VC under circumstances that did not permit face-to-face consultations. The continuity that VC offered the service users was seen as a valuable asset. Various negative aspects concerning the therapeutic environment such as lack of safety for the most vulnerable service users and topics deemed unsuitable for VC lowered the therapists' overall impression of the service. The themes that arose in the data analysis have been categorized in the following main topics: (1) VC-"it's better than nothing"; (2) VC affects therapists' work situation-opportunities and challenges in working conditions; and (3) challenges of VC when performing professional assessment and therapy on the screen. CONCLUSIONS: Experiences with VC in a mental health hospital during COVID-19 restrictions indicate that there are overall advantages to using VC when circumstances do not permit face-to-face consultations. Nevertheless, various negative aspects in the use of VC lowered the therapists' overall impression of VC. Further qualitative research is needed, and future studies should focus on service users' experiences, cocreation between different stakeholders, and how to scale up the use of VC while ensuring that the service provided is appropriate, safe, and available.
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 | 0,017 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,013 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».