MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388916029 · doi:10.2196/53293

Evaluating Clinical Outcomes in Patients Being Treated Exclusively via Telepsychiatry: Retrospective Data Analysis

2023· article· en· W4388916029 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cheryl Person, Nicola O'Connor, L. A. Koehler, Kartik Venkatachalam, Georgia Gaveras

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelepsychiatryMedicineAnxietyDepression (economics)Generalized anxiety disorderPatient Health QuestionnairePsychiatryInternal medicineTelemedicineHealth careDepressive symptoms

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are highly prevalent conditions in the United States. Despite the availability of suitable therapeutic options, limited access to high-quality psychiatrists represents a major barrier to treatment. Although telepsychiatry has the potential to improve access to psychiatrists, treatment efficacy in the telepsychiatry model remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to determine whether there was a clinically meaningful change in 1 of 2 validated outcome measures of depression and anxiety-the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8) or the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7)-after receiving at least 8 weeks of treatment in an outpatient telepsychiatry setting. METHODS: We included treatment-seeking patients enrolled in a large outpatient telepsychiatry service that accepts commercial insurance. All analyzed patients completed the GAD-7 and PHQ-8 prior to their first appointment and at least once after 8 weeks of treatment. Treatments included comprehensive diagnostic evaluation, supportive psychotherapy, and medication management. RESULTS: In total, 1826 treatment-seeking patients were evaluated for clinically meaningful changes in GAD-7 and PHQ-8 scores during treatment. Mean treatment duration was 103 (SD 34) days. At baseline, 58.8% (1074/1826) and 60.1% (1097/1826) of patients exhibited at least moderate anxiety and depression, respectively. In response to treatment, mean change for GAD-7 was -6.71 (95% CI -7.03 to -6.40) and for PHQ-8 was -6.85 (95% CI -7.18 to -6.52). Patients with at least moderate symptoms at baseline showed a 45.7% reduction in GAD-7 scores and a 43.1% reduction in PHQ-8 scores. Effect sizes for GAD-7 and PHQ-8, as measured by Cohen d for paired samples, were d=1.30 (P<.001) and d=1.23 (P<.001), respectively. Changes in GAD-7 and PHQ-8 scores correlated with the type of insurance held by the patients. Greatest reductions in scores were observed among patients with commercial insurance (45% and 43.9% reductions in GAD-7 and PHQ-8 scores, respectively). Although patients with Medicare did exhibit statistically significant reductions in GAD-7 and PHQ-8 scores from baseline (P<.001), these improvements were attenuated compared to those in patients with commercial insurance (29.2% and 27.6% reduction in GAD-7 and PHQ-8 scores, respectively). Pairwise comparison tests revealed significant differences in treatment responses in patients with Medicare versus commercial insurance (P<.001). Responses were independent of patient geographic classification (urban vs rural; P=.48 for GAD-7 and P=.07 for PHQ-8). The finding that treatment efficacy was comparable among rural and urban patients indicated that telepsychiatry is a promising approach to overcome treatment disparities that stem from geographical constraints. CONCLUSIONS: In this large retrospective data analysis of treatment-seeking patients using a telepsychiatry platform, we found robust and clinically significant improvement in depression and anxiety symptoms during treatment. The results provide further evidence that telepsychiatry is highly effective and has the potential to improve access to psychiatric care.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.320
GPT teacher head0.628
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 Formative ResearchSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207