No abstract

Introduction Despite a growing literature base, substantial investment, and policy changes within governments, the integration of telehealth into routine clinical care has been limited. The availability of appropriate systematic education and training for practitioners has been highlighted as necessary for strong adoption. However, the availability and nature of telehealth-related education and training for practitioners is not understood. By reviewing the literature, we aimed to describe the delivery of education and training in telehealth, with particular focus on content, modes of delivery, types of institutions, and target clinician groups. Methods We performed searches using PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and ERIC. We included studies that were focused on the delivery of telehealth-related academic or vocational education and training. We extracted information pertaining to country, programs and their participants, and tabulated the results. Results Altogether 388 articles were identified, of which nine studies were selected for final review. Programs from five countries were represented and articles were spread across telemedicine and clinically oriented journals. Education and training in telehealth has been provided as both university level and vocational courses using conventional classroom based delivery methods and e-learning. Reported curriculum items included terminology, clinical applications, the evidence-base, and technological aspects. Conclusions Published evidence in peer-reviewed literature on telehealth education and training is limited. According to this review, a number of topics relating to telehealth have been covered by existing education programs both within tertiary and professional development levels.

We conducted a randomized controlled trial to test whether a Brief Mobile Treatment (BMT) intervention could improve outcomes relative to usual care among suicide attempters. The intervention included training in problem solving therapy, meditation, a brief intervention to increase social support as well as advice on alcohol and other drugs, and mobile phone follow-up. The effect of the intervention was measured in terms of a reduction in suicidal ideation, depression and self-harm at Baseline, six and 12 months. A wait-list control group received usual care. A total of 68 participants was recruited from a Sri Lankan hospital following a suicide attempt. Participants who received the intervention were found to achieve significant improvements in reducing suicidal ideation and depression than those receiving usual care. The BMT group also experienced a significant improvement of social support when compared to the control group. However, the BMT group did not demonstrate a significant effect in reducing actual self-harm and most substance use, and differential effects on alcohol use were restricted to men. Although the present study was limited in revealing which component of the intervention was more effective in preventing suicide, it showed its efficacy in reducing suicide as a whole.

Information and communications technology has become central to the way in which health services are provided. Technology-enabled services in healthcare are often described as eHealth, or more recently, digital health. Practitioners may require new knowledge, skills and competencies to make best use of eHealth, and while universities may be a logical place to provide such education and training, a study in 2012 found that the workforce was not being adequately educated to achieve competence to work with eHealth. We revisited eHealth education and training in Australian universities with a focus on medical schools; we aimed to explore the progress of eHealth in the Australian medical curriculum. We conducted a national interview study and interpretative phenomenological analysis with participants from all 19 medical schools in Australia; two themes emerged: (i) consensus on the importance of eHealth to current and future clinical practice; (ii) there are other priorities, and no strong drivers for change. Systemic problems inhibit the inclusion of eHealth in medical education: the curriculum is described as ‘crowded’ and with competing demands, and because accrediting bodies do not expect eHealth competence in medical graduates, there is no external pressure for its inclusion. Unless and until accrediting bodies recognise and expect competence in eHealth, it is unlikely that it will enter the curriculum; consequently the future workforce will remain unprepared.