Background Telemental health care has been rapidly adopted for maintaining services during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a substantial interest is now being devoted in its future role. Service planning and policy making for recovery from the pandemic and beyond should draw on both COVID-19 experiences and the substantial research evidence accumulated before this pandemic. Objective We aim to conduct an umbrella review of systematic reviews available on the literature and evidence-based guidance on telemental health, including both qualitative and quantitative literature. Methods Three databases were searched between January 2010 and August 2020 for systematic reviews meeting the predefined criteria. The retrieved reviews were independently screened, and those meeting the inclusion criteria were synthesized and assessed for risk of bias. Narrative synthesis was used to report these findings. Results In total, 19 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. A total of 15 reviews examined clinical effectiveness, 8 reported on the aspects of telemental health implementation, 10 reported on acceptability to service users and clinicians, 2 reported on cost-effectiveness, and 1 reported on guidance. Most reviews were assessed to be of low quality. The findings suggested that video-based communication could be as effective and acceptable as face-to-face formats, at least in the short term. Evidence on the extent of digital exclusion and how it can be overcome and that on some significant contexts, such as children and young people’s services and inpatient settings, was found to be lacking. Conclusions This umbrella review suggests that telemental health has the potential to be an effective and acceptable form of service delivery. However, we found limited evidence on the impact of its large-scale implementation across catchment areas. Combining previous evidence and COVID-19 experiences may allow realistic planning for the future implementation of telemental health.

Background: Tele-mental health care has been rapidly adopted to maintain services during the pandemic, and there is now substantial interest in its future role. Service planning and policy making for recovery from the pandemic and beyond should draw not only on COVID-19 experiences, but also on the substantial research evidence accumulated prior to this. Aims: to conduct an umbrella review of systematic reviews of research literature and evidence-based guidance on remote working in mental health, including both qualitative and quantitative literature. Method: Three databases were searched between January 2010 and August 2020 for systematic reviews meeting pre-defined criteria. Reviews retrieved were independently screened and those meeting inclusion criteria were synthesised and assessed for risk of bias. Narrative synthesis was used to report findings Results: Nineteen systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. Fifteen examined clinical effectiveness, eight reported on aspects of tele-mental health implementation, ten reported on acceptability to service users and clinicians, two on cost-effectiveness and one on guidance. Most reviews were assessed as low quality. Findings suggested that video-based communication could be as effective and acceptable as face-face formats, at least in the short-term. Evidence was lacking on extent of digital exclusion and how it can be overcome, or on significant context such as children and young people and inpatient settings. Conclusions: This umbrella review suggests that tele-mental health has potential to be an effective and acceptable form of service delivery. However, we found limited evidence on impacts of large-scale implementation across catchment areas. Combining previous evidence and COVID-19 experiences may allow realistic planning for future tele-mental health implementation.

Introduction The need to improve the quality of community mental health services for people with Complex Emotional Needs (CEN) (who may have a diagnosis of ‘personality disorder’) is recognised internationally and has become a renewed policy priority in England. Such improvement requires positive engagement from clinicians across the service system, and their perspectives on achieving good practice need to be understood. Aim To synthesise qualitative evidence on clinician perspectives on what constitutes good practice, and what helps or prevents it being achieved, in community mental health services for people with CEN. Methods Six bibliographic databases were searched for studies published since 2003 and supplementary citation tracking was conducted. Studies that used any recognised qualitative method and reported clinician experiences and perspectives on community-based mental health services for adults with CEN were eligible for this review, including generic and specialist settings. Meta-synthesis was used to generate and synthesise over-arching themes across included studies. Results Twenty-nine papers were eligible for inclusion, most with samples given a ‘personality disorder’ diagnosis. Six over-arching themes were identified: 1. The use and misuse of diagnosis; 2. The patient journey into services: nowhere to go; 3. Therapeutic relationships: connection and distance; 4. The nature of treatment: not doing too much or too little; 5. Managing safety issues and crises: being measured and proactive; 6. Clinician and wider service needs: whose needs are they anyway? The overall quality of the evidence was moderate. Discussion Through summarising the literature on clinician perspectives on good practice for people with CEN, over-arching priorities were identified on which there appears to be substantial consensus. In their focus on needs such as for a long-term perspective on treatment journeys, high quality and consistent therapeutic relationships, and a balanced approach to safety, clinician priorities are mainly congruent with those found in studies on service user views. They also identify clinician needs that should be met for good care to be provided, including for supervision, joint working and organisational support.

BACKGROUND Early in 2020, mental health services had to rapidly shift from face-to-face models of care to delivering the majority of treatments remotely (by video or phone call or occasionally messaging) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in several challenges for staff and patients, but also in benefits such as convenience or increased access for people with impaired mobility or in rural areas. There is a need to understand the extent and impacts of telemental health implementation, and barriers and facilitators to its effective and acceptable use. This is relevant both to future emergency adoption of telemental health and to debates on its future use in routine mental health care. OBJECTIVE To investigate the adoption and impacts of telemental health approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic, and facilitators and barriers to optimal implementation. METHODS Four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched for primary research relating to remote working, mental health care, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Preprint servers were also searched. Results of studies were synthesized using framework synthesis. RESULTS A total of 77 papers met our inclusion criteria. In most studies, the majority of contacts could be transferred to a remote form during the pandemic, and good acceptability to service users and clinicians tended to be reported, at least where the alternative to remote contacts was interrupting care. However, a range of impediments to dealing optimal care by this means were also identified. CONCLUSIONS Implementation of telemental health allowed some continuing support to the majority of service users during the COVID-19 pandemic and has value in an emergency situation. However, not all service users can be reached by this means, and better evidence is now needed on long-term impacts on therapeutic relationships and quality of care, and on impacts on groups at risk of digital exclusion and how to mitigate these. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews CRD42021211025; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021211025