The Provision and Utilization of Telehealth Within Academic Mental Health Clinics in North America During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveTo document the experience of 14 academic child and adolescent psychiatry programs in transitioning to and managing telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The goal was to understand how programs adopted and sustained telehealth during the pandemic. Telehealth was defined as services delivered via videoconferencing and telephony.MethodIn this descriptive study, faculty from 14 programs completed online surveys about the use of both telehealth and in-person services from February 2020 to June 2021. Survey questions addressed telehealth practices (eg, policies, support resources), monthly service utilization, telehealth modality (videoconferencing vs telephony), and missed appointments.ResultsPrograms varied in the proportion of appointments delivered by telehealth before the pandemic (February 2020; 0%-27%). By May 2020, all programs were providing a majority of visits via telehealth (64%-100%). In June 2021, all programs continued to provide services via telehealth (41%-100%) and reported that they would continue to do so moving forward. Programs addressed many challenges to telehealth provision during the study period, including adding interpreter services, technological support for providers and patients, and formalizing safety and training requirements.ConclusionAcademic child and adolescent psychiatry programs provided outpatient services primarily via telehealth throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and reported that they planned to continue using telehealth in combination with in-person services moving forward. Academic programs should address logistical, technological, and financial barriers to the sustained use of telehealth. To document the experience of 14 academic child and adolescent psychiatry programs in transitioning to and managing telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The goal was to understand how programs adopted and sustained telehealth during the pandemic. Telehealth was defined as services delivered via videoconferencing and telephony. In this descriptive study, faculty from 14 programs completed online surveys about the use of both telehealth and in-person services from February 2020 to June 2021. Survey questions addressed telehealth practices (eg, policies, support resources), monthly service utilization, telehealth modality (videoconferencing vs telephony), and missed appointments. Programs varied in the proportion of appointments delivered by telehealth before the pandemic (February 2020; 0%-27%). By May 2020, all programs were providing a majority of visits via telehealth (64%-100%). In June 2021, all programs continued to provide services via telehealth (41%-100%) and reported that they would continue to do so moving forward. Programs addressed many challenges to telehealth provision during the study period, including adding interpreter services, technological support for providers and patients, and formalizing safety and training requirements. Academic child and adolescent psychiatry programs provided outpatient services primarily via telehealth throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and reported that they planned to continue using telehealth in combination with in-person services moving forward. Academic programs should address logistical, technological, and financial barriers to the sustained use of telehealth.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".