Clinician perspectives on providing telepsychiatry services to young adults with first‐episode psychosis during <scp>COVID</scp>‐19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Telepsychiatry has the potential to facilitate access to mental health services for young people with first-episode of psychosis (FEP); however, limited attention has been given regarding the perceptions of mental health providers in this regard. OBJECTIVE: To assess service providers' perceptions on the use of telepsychiatry and changes over time. METHODS: Longitudinal survey (conducted at two time points) of 26 service providers, including physicians, nurses, social workers, occupational therapists, and peer support workers, recruited from a specialized program for FEP providing telepsychiatry services through REACTS (videoconferencing platform). RESULTS: Responses during the initial and the follow-up survey were similar. Most participants used REACTS nine times or more, with more than half reporting that sessions lasted more than 30 min. Over time, there was a trend towards higher frequency of use and lower duration of sessions. The majority perceived REACTS as safe and easy to use and indicated they would recommend REACTS to colleagues. Although participants reported some issues related to set-up and initial use, internet accessibility, and sound and image, most of these concerns decreased during follow-up. Participants appreciated the usability and utility of REACTS, and reported several benefits of telepsychiatry, including facilitating client engagement, assessment and continuity. CONCLUSIONS: Service providers expressed positive perceptions regarding the use of telepsychiatry. Despite analysis being limited to a small sample, this study raises awareness of telepsychiatry's value and feasibility for offering services to young populations with FEP and the importance of conducting research on clinician perspectives in this regard.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".