Diagnosis and symptom assessment in telepsychiatry vs. face-to-face settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 6.2 3区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Mayu Fujikawa, Katsuhiko Hagi, Shotaro Kinoshita, Akihiro Takamiya, Mari Iizuka, Shota Furukawa, Yoko Eguchi, Shunya Kurokawa, Ryo Takemura, Taishiro Kishimoto
{"title":"Diagnosis and symptom assessment in telepsychiatry vs. face-to-face settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Mayu Fujikawa, Katsuhiko Hagi, Shotaro Kinoshita, Akihiro Takamiya, Mari Iizuka, Shota Furukawa, Yoko Eguchi, Shunya Kurokawa, Ryo Takemura, Taishiro Kishimoto","doi":"10.1111/pcn.13860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Telepsychiatry is increasingly integral to psychiatric practice. However, few reviews have examined the concordance between assessments conducted in telepsychiatric and face-to-face settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the agreement between telepsychiatric and face-to-face settings in the diagnosis and symptom assessment of various psychiatric disorders.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Studies evaluating the concordance between telepsychiatric and face-to-face settings in the diagnosis and symptom assessment of various psychiatric disorders were included and analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 6875 studies in the initial search, 22 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the analyses. The diagnostic concordance for 16 psychiatric disorders was \"almost perfect\" between the two settings (N = 16, n = 848, Cohen's κ = 0.824, confidence interval [CI] = 0.466 to 0.950, P < 0.001). Additionally, the concordance for the symptom rating scales between the two settings ranged from \"substantial\" in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (N = 1, n = 533, Cohen's κ = 0.789, CI = 0.699 to 0.855, P < 0.001) to \"almost perfect\" in the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (N = 1, n = 92, intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.943, CI = 0.798 to 0.985, P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Telepsychiatry is highly concordant with face-to-face settings regarding psychiatric diagnoses and symptom assessment. In contrast, the present results also suggest that the suitability of telepsychiatry varies across disease types, specific symptoms, and assessment modalities. Although the present results must be interpreted with caution owing to the small number of studies for each assessment and disease, our findings suggest that telepsychiatry may have greater utility in psychiatric diagnostic assessment settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":20938,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.13860","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Telepsychiatry is increasingly integral to psychiatric practice. However, few reviews have examined the concordance between assessments conducted in telepsychiatric and face-to-face settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the agreement between telepsychiatric and face-to-face settings in the diagnosis and symptom assessment of various psychiatric disorders.

Methods: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Studies evaluating the concordance between telepsychiatric and face-to-face settings in the diagnosis and symptom assessment of various psychiatric disorders were included and analyzed.

Results: Of the 6875 studies in the initial search, 22 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the analyses. The diagnostic concordance for 16 psychiatric disorders was "almost perfect" between the two settings (N = 16, n = 848, Cohen's κ = 0.824, confidence interval [CI] = 0.466 to 0.950, P < 0.001). Additionally, the concordance for the symptom rating scales between the two settings ranged from "substantial" in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (N = 1, n = 533, Cohen's κ = 0.789, CI = 0.699 to 0.855, P < 0.001) to "almost perfect" in the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (N = 1, n = 92, intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.943, CI = 0.798 to 0.985, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Telepsychiatry is highly concordant with face-to-face settings regarding psychiatric diagnoses and symptom assessment. In contrast, the present results also suggest that the suitability of telepsychiatry varies across disease types, specific symptoms, and assessment modalities. Although the present results must be interpreted with caution owing to the small number of studies for each assessment and disease, our findings suggest that telepsychiatry may have greater utility in psychiatric diagnostic assessment settings.

远程精神病学与面对面设置的诊断和症状评估:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:远程精神病学日益成为精神病学实践的一部分。然而,很少有评论审查了在远程精神病学和面对面环境中进行的评估之间的一致性。本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了远程精神病学和面对面设置在各种精神疾病的诊断和症状评估中的一致性。方法:通过MEDLINE/PubMed、Cochrane Library、Scopus、EMBASE、CINAHL、PsycINFO等数据库进行文献检索。对各种精神障碍的诊断和症状评估中远程精神病学和面对面精神病学设置的一致性进行了研究并进行了分析。结果:在最初检索的6875项研究中,22项符合纳入标准的研究被纳入分析。两组间16项精神障碍诊断一致性“几乎完全”(N = 16, N = 848, Cohen’s κ = 0.824,置信区间[CI] = 0.466 ~ 0.950, P < 0.05)。结论:远程精神病学与面对面精神障碍诊断及症状评估高度一致。相反,目前的结果还表明,远程精神病学的适用性因疾病类型、特定症状和评估方式而异。虽然目前的结果必须谨慎解释,因为每个评估和疾病的研究数量很少,我们的研究结果表明,远程精神病学在精神诊断评估环境中可能有更大的效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
181
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: PCN (Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences) Publication Frequency: Published 12 online issues a year by JSPN Content Categories: Review Articles Regular Articles Letters to the Editor Peer Review Process: All manuscripts undergo peer review by anonymous reviewers, an Editorial Board Member, and the Editor Publication Criteria: Manuscripts are accepted based on quality, originality, and significance to the readership Authors must confirm that the manuscript has not been published or submitted elsewhere and has been approved by each author
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信