Limitations in the routine use of telepsychiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Telepsychiatry is well established in many countries, but there is still little information about its use in routine health care. We reviewed the literature for information on the use of telepsychiatry in mental health services. From 1033 publications identified in the literature search and through references from a separate project, 16 studies or descriptions of the routine use of telepsychiatry services were selected for further review. Eleven of these articles dealt primarily with videoconferencing and five with telephone- based services. Clinical use of videoconferencing in the programmes described by the reviewed papers was modest, with an average of 16 consultations per month. Three of the telephone-based services had large numbers of clients. The papers we reviewed gave limited consideration to the healthcare systems in which telepsychiatry was provided and to the use of conventional mental health services. Telepsychiatry appears to still be a niche technology in many health systems. A lack of champions for the technology and reimbursement problems may contribute to the limited use of this area of telemedicine.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".