MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210685454 · doi:10.2196/30359

Opportunities and Challenges for Professionals in Psychiatry and Mental Health Care Using Digital Technologies During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review

2021· review· en· W3210685454 on OpenAlex
Hélène Kane, Jade Gourret Baumgart, Wissam El‐Hage, Jocelyn Deloyer, Christine Maes, Marie-Clotilde Lebas, Donatella Marazziti, Johannes Thome, Laurence Fond‐Harmant, Frédéric Denis

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsMental healthModalitiesPandemicVideoconferencingTelemedicineSystematic reviewAgency (philosophy)MEDLINEDigital healthHealth careCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicinePsychologyMedical educationPsychiatryPolitical scienceComputer scienceMultimediaSociologyDiseaseSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has required psychiatric and mental health professionals to change their practices to reduce the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, in particular by favoring remote monitoring and assessment via digital technologies. OBJECTIVE: As part of a research project that was cofunded by the French National Research Agency (ARN) and the Centre-Val de Loire Region, the aim of this systematic literature review was to investigate how such uses of digital technologies have been developing. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The search was carried out in the MEDLINE (ie, PubMed) and Cairn databases, as well as in a platform specializing in mental health, Ascodocpsy. The search yielded 558 results for the year 2020. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, first on titles and abstracts and then on full texts, 61 articles were included. RESULTS: The analysis of the literature revealed a heterogeneous integration of digital technologies, not only depending on countries, contexts, and local regulations, but also depending on the modalities of care. Notwithstanding these variations, the use of videoconferencing has developed significantly, affecting working conditions and therapeutic relationships. For many psychiatric and mental health professionals, the pandemic has been an opportunity to build up their experience of remote care and, thus, better identify the possibilities and limits of these digital technologies. CONCLUSIONS: New uses of such technologies essentially consist of a transition from the classic consultation model toward teleconsultation and make less use of the specific potential of artificial intelligence. As professionals were not prepared for these uses, they were confronted with practical difficulties and ethical questions, such as the place of digital technology in care, confidentiality and protection of personal data, and equity in access to care. The COVID-19 health crisis questions how the organization of health care integrates the possibilities offered by digital technology, in particular to promote the autonomy and empowerment of mental health service users.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.340
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it