MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385969107 · doi:10.2196/46148

Determinants of Patient Use and Satisfaction With Synchronous Telemental Health Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4385969107 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ariana Neumann, Hans‐Helmut König, Josephine Bokermann, André Hajek

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsPsycINFOTelemedicineSystematic reviewPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)TelehealthMEDLINEPsychologyPatient satisfactionMeta-analysisHealth careMedicineFamily medicineNursingPolitical scienceDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several recent studies examined patient use and satisfaction with synchronous telemental health services in response to the widespread implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, a systematic review of recent literature on the determinants of these outcomes is missing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to give an extensive overview of the literature on and highlight the influential determinants of patient use and satisfaction with synchronous telemental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This review satisfied the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. Peer-reviewed, quantitative studies that observed the determinants of patient use or satisfaction with synchronous telemental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science database searches were conducted in August 2022 for English and German language studies published from 2020 onward. Key steps were performed by 2 reviewers. Determinants were synthesized into major categories informed by the dimensions of the widely used and established Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. RESULTS: Of the 20 included studies, 10 studies examined determinants of patient use, 7 examined determinants of patient satisfaction, and 3 observed both outcomes. The quality of the studies was mainly good or fair. There was substantial heterogeneity in the study designs, methods, and findings. Sociodemographic characteristics and health-related determinants were mostly considered. Some of the major dimensions of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology were neglected in recent studies. Although most findings were mixed or nonsignificant, some indications for potential relationships were found (eg, for sex, age, and symptom severity). CONCLUSIONS: The findings revealed potential target groups (eg, female and young patients with mild symptoms) for future postpandemic telemental health interventions. However, they also identified patient groups that were harder to reach (eg, older patients with severe symptoms); efforts may be beneficial to address such groups. Future quantitative and qualitative research is needed to secure and expand on recent findings, which could help improve services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022351576; https://tinyurl.com/yr6zrva5.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.009
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207