Victoria Hamilton, Zvezdana Petrovic, Fiona Stephanie May, Catherine Wade
{"title":"Consensus on telepractice service delivery practices with vulnerable families: a Delphi study","authors":"Victoria Hamilton, Zvezdana Petrovic, Fiona Stephanie May, Catherine Wade","doi":"10.1080/18387357.2023.2267148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTObjective: In recent years family services have been required to rapidly employ telehealth without access to a reliable and contemporary evidence-base for implementation. This study explores expert views on systems and practices that facilitate telehealth in the delivery of family support services to vulnerable families.Method: Using the Delphi survey method, an inventory comprising 124 telepractices was presented to an initial panel of telepractice researchers and practitioners (N = 23) for ratings across three survey rounds. The panel was asked to provide feedback and suggestions for further inclusions, leading to an additional 29 items.Results: Results indicate 119 telepractice strategies were endorsed as essential and/or feasible for family services. These strategies were spread across five domains including practices prior to service delivery, practices during telepractice, practices when working with group programs, practices when working with culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and support for practitioners.Discussion: Practices that facilitate organisational support for practitioners, flexible service modality, and equitable access and privacy attracted the strongest endorsement. The findings support a hybrid model of service delivery in family services.KEYWORDS: Telepracticetelehealthfamily servicesvulnerable familiesparenting supportservice providersDelphi study Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThis research project was funded by the Victorian Government Department of Families, Fairness and Housing.","PeriodicalId":51720,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Mental Health","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/18387357.2023.2267148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACTObjective: In recent years family services have been required to rapidly employ telehealth without access to a reliable and contemporary evidence-base for implementation. This study explores expert views on systems and practices that facilitate telehealth in the delivery of family support services to vulnerable families.Method: Using the Delphi survey method, an inventory comprising 124 telepractices was presented to an initial panel of telepractice researchers and practitioners (N = 23) for ratings across three survey rounds. The panel was asked to provide feedback and suggestions for further inclusions, leading to an additional 29 items.Results: Results indicate 119 telepractice strategies were endorsed as essential and/or feasible for family services. These strategies were spread across five domains including practices prior to service delivery, practices during telepractice, practices when working with group programs, practices when working with culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and support for practitioners.Discussion: Practices that facilitate organisational support for practitioners, flexible service modality, and equitable access and privacy attracted the strongest endorsement. The findings support a hybrid model of service delivery in family services.KEYWORDS: Telepracticetelehealthfamily servicesvulnerable familiesparenting supportservice providersDelphi study Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThis research project was funded by the Victorian Government Department of Families, Fairness and Housing.