Differences in the Use and Perception of Telehealth Across Four Mental Health Professions: Insights From a Secondary Analysis of Qualitative Data.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Qualitative Health Research Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI:10.1177/10497323241271960
Milena Heinsch,Campbell Tickner,David Betts,Caragh Brosnan,Kate Vincent,Justin Canty
{"title":"Differences in the Use and Perception of Telehealth Across Four Mental Health Professions: Insights From a Secondary Analysis of Qualitative Data.","authors":"Milena Heinsch,Campbell Tickner,David Betts,Caragh Brosnan,Kate Vincent,Justin Canty","doi":"10.1177/10497323241271960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is growing evidence that the uptake and use of telehealth is influenced by the distinct specialty area or type of healthcare service provided, with mental health services presenting particular challenges. However, little is known about how telehealth use differs between different mental health professions, and no qualitative research has explored variations in telehealth use and perspectives at the profession level within Australian mental health services. To address this gap, we analyzed transcripts from 19 semi-structured interviews conducted with mental healthcare professionals in a local health district within New South Wales, Australia. A secondary analysis of the data revealed the distinct ways in which different mental health professions perceive and engage with telehealth depending on their specific role and approach to practice. Application of a systems theory lens highlighted the challenges each profession faces at different levels of telehealth engagement, and the macro-systemic power dynamics and hierarchies that shape profession-specific differences in telehealth use.","PeriodicalId":48437,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Health Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241271960","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is growing evidence that the uptake and use of telehealth is influenced by the distinct specialty area or type of healthcare service provided, with mental health services presenting particular challenges. However, little is known about how telehealth use differs between different mental health professions, and no qualitative research has explored variations in telehealth use and perspectives at the profession level within Australian mental health services. To address this gap, we analyzed transcripts from 19 semi-structured interviews conducted with mental healthcare professionals in a local health district within New South Wales, Australia. A secondary analysis of the data revealed the distinct ways in which different mental health professions perceive and engage with telehealth depending on their specific role and approach to practice. Application of a systems theory lens highlighted the challenges each profession faces at different levels of telehealth engagement, and the macro-systemic power dynamics and hierarchies that shape profession-specific differences in telehealth use.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
四个心理健康专业对远程医疗的使用和认知差异:定性数据二次分析的启示。
越来越多的证据表明,远程医疗的吸收和使用受到所提供医疗保健服务的不同专业领域或类型的影响,其中心理健康服务面临着特殊的挑战。然而,人们对不同心理健康专业之间使用远程医疗的差异知之甚少,也没有定性研究探讨过澳大利亚心理健康服务中远程医疗在专业层面的使用和观点差异。为了填补这一空白,我们对澳大利亚新南威尔士州一个地方卫生区的心理保健专业人员进行的 19 次半结构式访谈的记录进行了分析。对数据的二次分析表明,不同的心理健康专业人员对远程医疗的看法和参与方式各不相同,这取决于他们的具体角色和实践方法。系统理论视角的应用凸显了每个专业在参与远程保健的不同层面上所面临的挑战,以及在远程保健使用中形成专业差异的宏观系统权力动态和等级制度。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
6.20%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH is an international, interdisciplinary, refereed journal for the enhancement of health care and to further the development and understanding of qualitative research methods in health care settings. We welcome manuscripts in the following areas: the description and analysis of the illness experience, health and health-seeking behaviors, the experiences of caregivers, the sociocultural organization of health care, health care policy, and related topics. We also seek critical reviews and commentaries addressing conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues pertaining to qualitative enquiry.
期刊最新文献
Guardians Looking From Outside: Gendered Experiences of Labor Migration and Psychosocial Health Among Nepalese Migrant Fathers and Left-Behind Mothers “That Is What We Have Left of Her”: The Significance of Transitional Objects After the Death of an Infant in a Norwegian Context Intersectionality and Caregiving: The Exclusion Experience and Coping Resources of Immigrant Women Caring for a Family Member With Severe Mental Illness. Differences in the Use and Perception of Telehealth Across Four Mental Health Professions: Insights From a Secondary Analysis of Qualitative Data. A Prospective Qualitative Inquiry of Patient Experiences of Cognitive Functional Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain During the RESTORE Trial
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1