远程医疗的参与度:比较澳大利亚和新西兰在 Covid-19 大流行期间通过远程医疗面对面提供辩证行为疗法和通过远程医疗提供辩证行为疗法项目的参与度。

Carla J Walton, Sharleen Gonzalez, Emily B Cooney, Lucy Leigh, Stuart Szwec
{"title":"远程医疗的参与度:比较澳大利亚和新西兰在 Covid-19 大流行期间通过远程医疗面对面提供辩证行为疗法和通过远程医疗提供辩证行为疗法项目的参与度。","authors":"Carla J Walton, Sharleen Gonzalez, Emily B Cooney, Lucy Leigh, Stuart Szwec","doi":"10.1186/s40479-023-00221-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While the COVID-19 crisis has had numerous global negative impacts, it has also presented an imperative for mental health care systems to make digital mental health interventions a part of routine care. Accordingly, through necessity, many Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) programs transitioned to telehealth, despite little information on clinical outcomes compared with face-to-face treatment delivery. This study examined differences in client engagement (i.e. attendance) of DBT: delivered face-to-face prior to the first COVID-19 lockdown in Australia and New Zealand; delivered via telehealth during the lockdown; and delivered post-lockdown. Our primary outcomes were to compare: [1] client attendance rates of DBT individual therapy delivered face-to-face with delivery via telehealth, and [2] client attendance rates of DBT skills training delivered face-to-face compared with delivery via telehealth.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>DBT programs across Australia and New Zealand provided de-identified data for a total of 143 individuals who received DBT treatment provided via telehealth or face-to-face over a six-month period in 2020. Data included attendance rates of DBT individual therapy sessions; attendance rates of DBT skills training sessions as well as drop-out rates and First Nations status of clients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A mixed effects logistic regression model revealed no significant differences between attendance rates for clients attending face-to-face sessions or telehealth sessions for either group therapy or individual therapy. This result was found for clients who identified as First Nations persons and those who didn't identify as First Nations persons.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Clients were as likely to attend their DBT sessions over telehealth as they were face-to-face during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic. These findings provide preliminary evidence that providing DBT over telehealth may be a viable option to increase access for clients, particularly in areas where face-to-face treatment is not available. Further, based on the data collected in this study, we can be less concerned that offering telehealth treatment will compromise attendance rates compared to face-to-face treatment. Further research is needed comparing clinical outcomes between treatments delivered face-to-face compared delivery via telehealth.</p>","PeriodicalId":48586,"journal":{"name":"Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation","volume":"10 1","pages":"16"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10198751/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Engagement over telehealth: comparing attendance between dialectical behaviour therapy delivered face-to-face and via telehealth for programs in Australia and New Zealand during the Covid-19 pandemic.\",\"authors\":\"Carla J Walton, Sharleen Gonzalez, Emily B Cooney, Lucy Leigh, Stuart Szwec\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40479-023-00221-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While the COVID-19 crisis has had numerous global negative impacts, it has also presented an imperative for mental health care systems to make digital mental health interventions a part of routine care. Accordingly, through necessity, many Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) programs transitioned to telehealth, despite little information on clinical outcomes compared with face-to-face treatment delivery. This study examined differences in client engagement (i.e. attendance) of DBT: delivered face-to-face prior to the first COVID-19 lockdown in Australia and New Zealand; delivered via telehealth during the lockdown; and delivered post-lockdown. Our primary outcomes were to compare: [1] client attendance rates of DBT individual therapy delivered face-to-face with delivery via telehealth, and [2] client attendance rates of DBT skills training delivered face-to-face compared with delivery via telehealth.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>DBT programs across Australia and New Zealand provided de-identified data for a total of 143 individuals who received DBT treatment provided via telehealth or face-to-face over a six-month period in 2020. Data included attendance rates of DBT individual therapy sessions; attendance rates of DBT skills training sessions as well as drop-out rates and First Nations status of clients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A mixed effects logistic regression model revealed no significant differences between attendance rates for clients attending face-to-face sessions or telehealth sessions for either group therapy or individual therapy. This result was found for clients who identified as First Nations persons and those who didn't identify as First Nations persons.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Clients were as likely to attend their DBT sessions over telehealth as they were face-to-face during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic. These findings provide preliminary evidence that providing DBT over telehealth may be a viable option to increase access for clients, particularly in areas where face-to-face treatment is not available. Further, based on the data collected in this study, we can be less concerned that offering telehealth treatment will compromise attendance rates compared to face-to-face treatment. Further research is needed comparing clinical outcomes between treatments delivered face-to-face compared delivery via telehealth.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48586,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10198751/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-023-00221-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-023-00221-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:虽然 COVID-19 危机在全球范围内造成了许多负面影响,但也为心理健康护理系统提出了将数字心理健康干预作为常规护理一部分的迫切要求。因此,许多辩证行为疗法(DBT)项目迫不得已地过渡到了远程医疗,尽管与面对面治疗相比,有关临床结果的信息很少。本研究考察了在澳大利亚和新西兰第一次 COVID-19 封锁前面对面提供、封锁期间通过远程医疗提供以及封锁后提供的 DBT 在客户参与度(即出勤率)方面的差异。我们的主要结果是比较[1)面对面提供的 DBT 个人治疗与通过远程医疗提供的 DBT 个人治疗的客户出勤率;(2)面对面提供的 DBT 技能培训与通过远程医疗提供的 DBT 技能培训的客户出勤率:方法: 澳大利亚和新西兰的 DBT 项目提供了去标识化的数据,共有 143 人在 2020 年的六个月内接受了通过远程医疗或面对面提供的 DBT 治疗。数据包括 DBT 个人治疗课程的出勤率、DBT 技能培训课程的出勤率以及客户的辍学率和原住民身份:混合效应逻辑回归模型显示,参加面对面课程或远程医疗课程的客户在团体治疗或个人治疗的出席率方面没有显著差异。这一结果在被认定为原住民的客户和未被认定为原住民的客户中均有体现:结论:在 Covid-19 大流行的第一年,客户通过远程医疗参加 DBT 治疗的可能性与面对面治疗相同。这些研究结果提供了初步证据,表明通过远程医疗提供 DBT 可能是增加患者就医机会的可行选择,尤其是在无法提供面对面治疗的地区。此外,根据本研究收集的数据,我们可以不必担心与面对面治疗相比,提供远程保健治疗会影响就诊率。我们还需要进一步研究,比较面对面治疗与远程保健治疗的临床效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Engagement over telehealth: comparing attendance between dialectical behaviour therapy delivered face-to-face and via telehealth for programs in Australia and New Zealand during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Background: While the COVID-19 crisis has had numerous global negative impacts, it has also presented an imperative for mental health care systems to make digital mental health interventions a part of routine care. Accordingly, through necessity, many Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) programs transitioned to telehealth, despite little information on clinical outcomes compared with face-to-face treatment delivery. This study examined differences in client engagement (i.e. attendance) of DBT: delivered face-to-face prior to the first COVID-19 lockdown in Australia and New Zealand; delivered via telehealth during the lockdown; and delivered post-lockdown. Our primary outcomes were to compare: [1] client attendance rates of DBT individual therapy delivered face-to-face with delivery via telehealth, and [2] client attendance rates of DBT skills training delivered face-to-face compared with delivery via telehealth.

Methods: DBT programs across Australia and New Zealand provided de-identified data for a total of 143 individuals who received DBT treatment provided via telehealth or face-to-face over a six-month period in 2020. Data included attendance rates of DBT individual therapy sessions; attendance rates of DBT skills training sessions as well as drop-out rates and First Nations status of clients.

Results: A mixed effects logistic regression model revealed no significant differences between attendance rates for clients attending face-to-face sessions or telehealth sessions for either group therapy or individual therapy. This result was found for clients who identified as First Nations persons and those who didn't identify as First Nations persons.

Conclusions: Clients were as likely to attend their DBT sessions over telehealth as they were face-to-face during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic. These findings provide preliminary evidence that providing DBT over telehealth may be a viable option to increase access for clients, particularly in areas where face-to-face treatment is not available. Further, based on the data collected in this study, we can be less concerned that offering telehealth treatment will compromise attendance rates compared to face-to-face treatment. Further research is needed comparing clinical outcomes between treatments delivered face-to-face compared delivery via telehealth.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
9.80%
发文量
30
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation provides a platform for researchers and clinicians interested in borderline personality disorder (BPD) as a currently highly challenging psychiatric disorder. Emotion dysregulation is at the core of BPD but also stands on its own as a major pathological component of the underlying neurobiology of various other psychiatric disorders. The journal focuses on the psychological, social and neurobiological aspects of emotion dysregulation as well as epidemiology, phenomenology, pathophysiology, treatment, neurobiology, genetics, and animal models of BPD.
期刊最新文献
Associations between maternal personality dysfunction and emotion suppression and adolescent emotion suppression. You say it's not me: the influence of offering external explanations of rejection and acceptance behavior on the perception of benevolence in borderline personality disorder. Trajectory of Non-suicidal Self-Injury among adolescents with borderline personality disorder over a 5-year period. Feeling close to others? Social cognitive mechanisms of intimacy in personality disorders. A cluster analysis of attachment styles in patients with borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder and ADHD.
×
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