Effectiveness of telemental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A propensity score noninferiority analysis of outcomes.

IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Psychotherapy Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1037/pst0000472
Kiran Gurm, Bruce E Wampold, Carley Piatt, Robert Jagodzinski, Derek D Caperton, Robbie Babins-Wagner
{"title":"Effectiveness of telemental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A propensity score noninferiority analysis of outcomes.","authors":"Kiran Gurm,&nbsp;Bruce E Wampold,&nbsp;Carley Piatt,&nbsp;Robert Jagodzinski,&nbsp;Derek D Caperton,&nbsp;Robbie Babins-Wagner","doi":"10.1037/pst0000472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments to implement a range of public health measures that disrupted the personal and professional lives of many, including an abrupt adoption of telemental health services. Using data from a nonprofit counseling practice, we tested whether telemental health services delivered during the pandemic were inferior to face-to-face services delivered prior to the pandemic. We first characterized patients seeking therapy services before and during the pandemic to ascertain whether the demographics and presenting concerns of patients pre- and during COVID-19 differed and found that pandemic patients reported greater anxiety, greater overall distress, were more likely female and not partnered, and earned less than before the pandemic. We used a propensity score matching analysis to account for these differences and investigated whether or not telemental health therapy was inferior to face-to-face therapy. Based on the propensity-matched samples (2,180 patients in each condition), telemental health services were found not to be inferior to in-person services, allaying concerns about the effectiveness of telemental health services delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic. The present study also illustrates the usefulness of propensity matching for examining treatment effects in naturalistic settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20910,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000472","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments to implement a range of public health measures that disrupted the personal and professional lives of many, including an abrupt adoption of telemental health services. Using data from a nonprofit counseling practice, we tested whether telemental health services delivered during the pandemic were inferior to face-to-face services delivered prior to the pandemic. We first characterized patients seeking therapy services before and during the pandemic to ascertain whether the demographics and presenting concerns of patients pre- and during COVID-19 differed and found that pandemic patients reported greater anxiety, greater overall distress, were more likely female and not partnered, and earned less than before the pandemic. We used a propensity score matching analysis to account for these differences and investigated whether or not telemental health therapy was inferior to face-to-face therapy. Based on the propensity-matched samples (2,180 patients in each condition), telemental health services were found not to be inferior to in-person services, allaying concerns about the effectiveness of telemental health services delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic. The present study also illustrates the usefulness of propensity matching for examining treatment effects in naturalistic settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

COVID-19大流行期间远程心理健康的有效性:结果的倾向评分非劣效性分析
COVID-19大流行迫使各国政府实施一系列公共卫生措施,扰乱了许多人的个人和职业生活,包括突然采用远程卫生服务。使用来自非营利咨询实践的数据,我们测试了大流行期间提供的远程心理健康服务是否不如大流行之前提供的面对面服务。我们首先对在大流行之前和期间寻求治疗服务的患者进行了特征描述,以确定患者在COVID-19之前和期间的人口统计数据和表现出的担忧是否有所不同,并发现大流行患者报告更大的焦虑和更大的整体痛苦,更有可能是女性,没有伴侣,收入低于大流行之前。我们使用倾向评分匹配分析来解释这些差异,并调查远程心理健康治疗是否不如面对面治疗。根据倾向匹配的样本(每种情况下有2180名患者),发现远程卫生服务并不逊于面对面的服务,这减轻了人们对COVID-19大流行期间提供的远程卫生服务有效性的担忧。本研究还说明了倾向匹配在自然环境下检验治疗效果的有用性。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
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
Psychotherapy
Psychotherapy PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
12.00%
发文量
93
期刊介绍: Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, Training publishes a wide variety of articles relevant to the field of psychotherapy. The journal strives to foster interactions among individuals involved with training, practice theory, and research since all areas are essential to psychotherapy. This journal is an invaluable resource for practicing clinical and counseling psychologists, social workers, and mental health professionals.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信