Psych-technology: A Systematic Review of the Telepsychiatry Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) have created opportunities to assist in providing alternate solutions to the delivery of quality psychiatric services. This study sets out to review the literature related to the use of ICT in the psychiatry field. The study was conducted using electronic databases such as Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO and Embase covering the period 1996 to March 2008. The focus of the study was on reviews including studies reporting cost-effectiveness, patient outcomes, technology implementations and services, applications in different geographical settings (developed and undeveloped countries), the use of telepsychiatry in Australia and the barriers to the practice of telepsychiatry. These studies were classified as randomised control trials, evaluation studies and review studies. Fifty-three articles were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Results from the randomized controlled trials analyzed have demonstrated that telepsychiatry treatment has equivalent efficacy to face-to-face consultation. Synchronous technologies applied in psychiatry practice include: videoconferencing, telephony and online chat programs. Asynchronous technologies include: online support groups, email and self-help groups. The application of telepsychiatry has increased in developed countries such as: USA, Canada and Europe. Telepsychiatry has also been widely used in a number of programs to service rural Australian regions. A lack of application and evolvement of telepsychiatry in developing countries was evident in this review study as well as a lack of economic studies comparing the costs associated with conventional psychiatry services against the costs associated with telepsychiatry services. This review study has shown the potential of telepsychiatry services to assist in the provision of effective mental and psychiatric care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".