Dataset Information

Clinical Outcomes of Asynchronous Versus Synchronous Telepsychiatry in Primary Care: Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Asynchronous telepsychiatry (ATP; delayed-time) consultations are a novel form of psychiatric consultation in primary care settings. Longitudinal studies comparing clinical outcomes for ATP with synchronous telepsychiatry (STP) are lacking.

Objective

This study aims to determine the effectiveness of ATP in improving clinical outcomes in English- and Spanish-speaking primary care patients compared with STP, the telepsychiatry usual care method.

Methods

Overall, 36 primary care physicians from 3 primary care clinics referred a heterogeneous sample of 401 treatment-seeking adult patients with nonurgent psychiatric disorders. A total of 184 (94 ATP and 90 STP) English- and Spanish-speaking participants (36/184, 19.6% Hispanic) were enrolled and randomized, and 160 (80 ATP and 80 STP) of them completed baseline evaluations. Patients were treated by their primary care physicians using a collaborative care model in consultation with the University of California Davis Health telepsychiatrists, who consulted with patients every 6 months for up to 2 years using ATP or STP. Primary outcomes (the clinician-rated Clinical Global Impressions [CGI] scale and the Global Assessment of Functioning [GAF]) and secondary outcomes (patients' self-reported physical and mental health and depression) outcomes were assessed every 6 months.

Results

For clinician-rated primary outcomes, ATP did not promote greater improvement than STP at 6-month follow-up (ATP vs STP, adjusted difference in follow-up at 6 months vs baseline differences for CGI: 0.2, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.6; P=.28; and GAF: -0.6, 95% CI -3.1 to 1.9; P=.66) or 12-month follow-up (ATP vs STP, adjusted difference in follow-up at 12 months vs baseline differences for CGI: 0.4, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.8; P=.07; and GAF: -0.5, 95% CI -3.3 to 2.2; P=.70), but patients in both arms had statistically and clinically significant improvements in both outcomes. There were no significant differences in improvement from baseline between ATP and STP on any patient self-reported ratings at any follow-up (all P values were between .17 and .96). Dropout rates were higher than predicted but similar between the 2 arms. Of those with baseline visits, 46.8% (75/160) did not have a follow-up at 1 year, and 72.7% (107/147) did not have a follow-up at 2 years. No serious adverse events were associated with the intervention.

Conclusions

This is the first longitudinal study to demonstrate that ATP can improve clinical outcomes in English- and Spanish-speaking primary care patients. Although we did not find evidence that ATP is superior to STP in improving clinical outcomes, it is potentially a key part of stepped mental health interventions available in primary care. ATP presents a possible solution to the workforce shortage of psychiatrists and a strategy for improving existing systems of care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02084979; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02084979.

SUBMITTER: Yellowlees PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8335606 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:An estimated 8.2 million adults in the United States live with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders. Although the benefits of integrated treatment services for persons with co-occurring disorders has been well-established, gaps in access to integrated care persist. Implementation research can address this gap. We evaluated if the Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) implementation strategy was effective in increasing integrated services capacity among organizations treating persons with co-occurring disorders. METHODS:This study employed a cluster randomized waitlist control group design. Forty-nine addiction treatment organizations from the State of Washington were randomized into one of two study arms: (1) NIATx strategy (active implementation strategy), or (2) waitlist (control). The primary outcome was a standardized organizational measure of integrated service capability: the Dual Diagnosis in Addiction Treatment (DDCAT) Index. Intent-to-treat analyses and per-protocol analyses were conducted to address the following questions: (1) Is NIATx effective in increasing integrated service capacity? and (2) Are there differences in organizations that actually use NIATx per-protocol versus those that do not? RESULTS:From baseline to one-year post active implementation, both the NIATx strategy and waitlist arms demonstrated improvements over time in DDCAT Index total and DDCAT dimension scores. In intent-to-treat analyses, a moderate but statistically significant difference in improvement between study arms was seen only in the Program Milieu dimension (p =?0.020, Cohen's d?=?0.54). In per-protocol analyses, moderate-to-large effects in Program Milieu (p =?0.002, Cohen's d?=?0.91) and Continuity of Care (p =?0.026, Cohen's d?=?0.63) dimensions, and in total DDCAT Index (p =?0.046, Cohen's d?=?0.51) were found. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, organizations in both study arms improved DDCAT Index scores over time. Organizations in the NIATx strategy arm with full adherence to the NIATx protocol had significantly greater improvements in the primary outcome measure of integrated service capacity for persons with co-occurring disorders. TRAIL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03007940 . Retrospectively registered January 2017.

Project description:Background:The objective of the present study is to compare the outcomes open PVHR and robotic PVHR. Methods/Design:The present study will be a randomized single-blinded controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis comparing robotic PVHR to open PVHR in adult patients undergoing elective PVHR with a defect ranging between 1-5 cm. Patient refusing to participate, not able to give informed consent, with history of intra-abdominal surgery contraindicating a robotic surgical approach will be excluded. The intervention will consist in laparoscopic robotically assisted trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical PVHR with closure of fascial defect and non-adsorbable mesh reinforcement. The control will be open pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical hernia repair with closure of fascial defect and non-absorbable mesh reinforcement. The primary outcome will be the incidence of wound-related complication within 1 month. The secondary outcomes will be esthetic satisfaction, pain, pain-killers consumption, general complications, costs, operative time and early hernia recurrence. Discussion:Open PVHR is potentially associated to more wound-related complications, but has the advantages of cost-effectiveness, short operative time and totally extra-peritoneal repair. Laparoscopic PVHR has lower wound-related complications but implies placing the mesh in intra-peritoneal position, requires advanced laparoscopic skills, usually does not allow the closure of the defect, and can lead to excessive pain and pain-killers consumption. Robotic PVHR uses the same laparoscopic access as laparoscopic PVHR, but thanks to the extended range of motion given by the robotic system, allows defect closure, pre-peritoneal placement of the mesh and requires less technical skills.In the present randomized controlled trial, we expect to show that robotic PVHR leads to better wound-related outcomes than open PVHR. Trial registration:The present randomized controlled trial was registered into clinicaltrials.gov under registration number NCT04171921.