MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386817470 · doi:10.2196/47047

Telehealth and In-Person Behavioral Health Services in Rural Communities Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Multisite Prospective Cohort Study

2023· article· en· W4386817470 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marcia M. Ward, Fred Ullrich, Divya Bhagianadh, Eve‐Lynn Nelson, James P. Marcin, Knute D. Carter, Kari Beth Law, Carly McCord, Jonathan Neufeld, Kimberly A. S. Merchant

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, DavisHealth Resources and Services AdministrationWest Virginia UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsTelehealthMedicineCohortCohort studyTelepsychiatryAnxietyStaffingMental healthPandemicProspective cohort studyHealth careTelemedicineHealth services researchPublic healthFamily medicinePsychiatryGerontologyNursingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered widespread adjustments across the US health care system. Telehealth use showed a substantial increase in mental health conditions and services due to acute public health emergency (PHE) behavioral health needs on top of long-standing gaps in access to behavioral health services. How health systems that were already providing behavioral telehealth services adjusted services and staffing during this period has not been well documented, particularly in rural areas with chronic shortages of behavioral health providers and services. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates patient and treatment characteristic changes from before the COVID-19 PHE to during the PHE within both telehealth and in-person behavioral health services provided in 95 rural communities across the United States. METHODS: We used a nonrandomized, prospective, multisite research design involving 2 active treatment groups. The telehealth cohort included all patients who initiated telehealth treatment regimens during the data collection period. A comparison group included a cohort of patients who initiated in-person treatment regimen. Patient enrollment occurred on a rolling basis, and data collection was extended for 3 months after treatment initiation for each patient. Chi-square tests compared changes from pre-PHE to PHE time periods within telehealth and in-person treatment cohorts. The dependent measures included patient diagnosis, clinicians providing treatment services, and type of treatment services provided at each encounter. The 4780 patients in the telehealth cohort and the 6457 patients in the in-person cohort had an average of 3.5 encounters during the 3-month follow-up period. RESULTS: The encounters involving anxiety, dissociative, and stress-related disorders in the telehealth cohort increased from 30% (698/2352) in the pre-PHE period to 35% (4632/12,853) in the PHE period (P<.001), and encounters involving substance use disorders in the in-person cohort increased from 11% (468/4249) in the pre-PHE period to 18% (3048/17,047) in the PHE period (P<.001). The encounters involving treatment service codes for alcohol, drug, and medication-assisted therapy in the telehealth cohort increased from 1% (22/2352) in the pre-PHE period to 11% (1470/13,387) in the PHE period (P<.001); likewise, encounters for this type of service in the in-person cohort increased from 0% (0/4249) in the pre-PHE period to 16% (2687/17,047) in the PHE period (P<.001). From the pre-PHE to the PHE period, encounters involving 60-minute psychotherapy in the telehealth cohort increased from 8% (190/2352) to 14% (1802/13,387; P<.001), while encounters involving group therapy in the in-person cohort decreased from 12% (502/4249) to 4% (739/17,047; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic challenged health service providers, and they adjusted the way both telehealth and in-person behavioral therapy services were delivered. Looking forward, future research is needed to explicate the interaction of patient, provider, setting, and intervention factors that influenced the patterns observed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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