Synthesis of the Evidence on What Works for Whom in Telemental Health: Rapid Realist Review

Introduction

Background

Telehealth is defined as “the delivery of health-related services and information via telecommunications technologies in the support of patient care, administrative activities, and health education” [1]. Telemental health refers to such approaches within mental health care settings. It can include care delivered by means such as SMS text messaging and chat functions but most commonly refers to telephone calls and video calls, which are central to telemental health care.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was interest in many countries and settings in integrating new technologies, including telemental health approaches, more widely and effectively in mental health care services. This was of particular interest in countries where face-to-face (ie, in-person) mental health care was largely inaccessible to remote communities [2]. Research has demonstrated that telemental health can be successful in various contexts, although studies before the pandemic tended to relate to relatively small-scale and well-planned applications of telemental health with volunteer participants, rather than large-scale implementations across whole service systems. Telemental health has been found to be effective in reducing treatment gaps and improving access to mental health care for some service users [3-5]. This includes those who live far from services or where caring responsibilities affect their ability to travel [6-8]. Positive outcomes and experiences have been reported across a range of populations (including adult, child and adolescent, older people, and ethnic minority groups) and settings (including hospital, primary care, and community) [9-11]. Some evidence has suggested that telemental health modalities such as videoconferencing are equivalent to, or even better than, face-to-face modalities for some service users in terms of quality of care, reliability of clinical assessments, treatment outcomes, or adherence [9,10,12,13]. High levels of service user acceptance and satisfaction with telemental health services have also been reported in research samples [4] and for certain populations, including those with physical mobility difficulties, social anxiety, or severe anxiety disorders [6,7]. However, conversely, telemental health services are not appropriate for or favored by all service users, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. In particular, service users experiencing social and economic disadvantages, cognitive difficulties, auditory or visual impairments, or severe mental health problems (such as psychosis) have benefited less from telemental health interventions [14,15]. Digitally excluded service users tend to be people who are already experiencing other forms of disadvantage and are already at risk of poorer access to services and less good quality care; thus, a switch to telemental health may exacerbate existing inequalities [16,17]. In addition, concerns have been raised around the impacts of telemental health on privacy and confidentiality of clinical contacts, especially for the many service users who do not have the appropriate space and facilities for its use, as well as its appropriateness for certain purposes, such as conducting assessments or risk management [14].

Encouraging evidence of telemental health acceptability and effectiveness from prepandemic research tended to relate to limited populations who had opted into well-planned remote services [18]. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telemental health around the world greatly accelerated, and telemental health became a routine approach for maintaining and delivering mental health services. Telemental health initiatives were central to delivering mental health services in the context of this emergency. Technological initiatives have also helped to address social isolation, which worsened throughout the pandemic [6,19]. In the United Kingdom, there were large increases in remote consultations in National Health Service (NHS) primary care [20], and national data reported that most contacts in NHS mental health settings were delivered remotely in 2020 [21], particularly during the first UK lockdown (March to July 2020).

Following the rapid adoption of telemental health at the start of the crisis, service planners, clinicians, and service users have expressed interest in the greater use of telemental health in the long term [14,19,22,23]. However, several challenges have been identified as arising from this widespread implementation [14,16,19,24,25]. These include (1) reaching digitally excluded populations, who may, for example, have limited technological access or expertise or both, thus compounding existing inequalities experienced by disadvantaged groups; (2) a lack of staff competence in using telemental health devices and confidence in delivering telemental health care; (3) a lack of technological infrastructure within health services; (4) challenges in managing clinical and technological risks in remotely delivered care; (5) developing and maintaining strong therapeutic relationships online, especially when the first contact is remote rather than face-to-face; (6) maintaining service user safety and privacy; and (7) delivering high-quality mental health assessments without being able to see or speak to the service user face-to-face. It is also more difficult to undertake physical assessments, including for physical signs linked to mental health, and side effect monitoring.

Both for future emergency responses and to establish a basis for the integration of telemental health into routine service delivery (where appropriate) beyond the pandemic, evidence is needed on how to optimize telemental health care, given the unique relational challenges associated with mental health care, and identify what works best and for whom in telemental health care delivery and in which contexts. It is also important to identify contexts in which telemental health is unlikely to be safe and effective, where face-to-face delivery should remain the default.

A methodological approach developed to address questions of which interventions work, for whom, and in which contexts in a timely way is the rapid realist review (RRR) [26]. This methodology has been developed to rapidly produce policy-relevant and actionable recommendations through a synthesis of peer-reviewed evidence and stakeholder consultation. A key characteristic of realist methodology is the focus on interactions between contextual factors (eg, a certain population, geographical location, service setting, or situation) and relevant mechanisms (eg, behavioral reactions, participants’ reasoning, or resources), which affect the outcomes of interest, such as intervention adherence or service user satisfaction [26-28]. Together, these are used to develop context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations, which comprise the fundamental building blocks of realist synthesis approaches. Evidence from the wider literature is also drawn upon to develop midrange theories. Midrange theories are program theories that aim to describe how certain mechanisms in specific contexts result in specific outcomes [29]; the use of the wider literature to develop midrange theories helps to elaborate and refine the developed CMO configurations by shedding further light on how their mechanisms operate [26,30-32]. Additional information on realist terminology can be found in Multimedia Appendix 1.

Objective

This is a unique opportunity to establish the characteristics of high-quality telemental health services and use these findings to identify key mechanisms for acceptable, effective, and efficient integration of telemental health services into routine mental health care. Using a realist methodology, in this RRR, we aimed to answer the question of what telemental health approaches work, for whom, in which contexts, and how? Specifically, we investigated the following questions in this review:

1. What factors or interventions improve or reduce adoption, reach, quality, acceptability, or other relevant outcomes in the use of telemental health in any setting?
2. Which approaches to telemental health work best for which staff and service users in which contexts?
3. In what contexts are phone calls, video calls, or SMS text messages preferable, and in which contexts should mental health care be delivered face-to-face instead?

We focus particularly on groups and contexts identified as high priority by policy makers (the process is described in detail in the Methods section), including children and young people, crisis care and inpatient settings, and groups at high risk of digital exclusion; examples from these groups are included wherever possible.

Methods

Overview

The RRR was conducted by the National Institute for Health Research Mental Health Policy Research Unit (MHPRU), a team established to deliver evidence rapidly to inform policy making, especially by the Department of Health and Social Care in England, associated government departments, and NHS policy leadership bodies. The project constitutes the final stage in a program of work on telemental health delivery conducted to meet urgent policy needs, which included an umbrella review of pre–COVID-19 evidence [18], a qualitative investigation of service user experiences of telemental health [24], a systematic review of literature on telemental health adoption conducted during the early phase of the pandemic [14], and a systematic review on the cost-effectiveness of telemental health approaches (personal communication by Clark et al, 2022). This RRR was registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD42021260910).

We conducted the RRR during the COVID-19 pandemic, with videoconferencing via Zoom (Zoom Video Communications) as the primary means of communication among the research team.

Study Design

An expert reference group of 28 people, including 16 (57%) university-employed academics, 7 (25%) experts by experience (lived experience researchers from the MHPRU Lived Experience Working Group (LEWG) with personal experiences of using mental health services or supporting others or both), and 8 (29%) experts by profession (including frontline clinicians), guided and contributed to the RRR throughout. Some members belonged to multiple groups and therefore worked from several (academic, clinical, or lived experience or multiple) perspectives.

The group met weekly throughout this process from July to November 2021. The expert reference group meetings served to develop and refine the study protocol; plan the searches for evidence (particularly the targeted additional searches supplementing the initially planned strategy); iteratively examine, refine, and validate the CMO configurations derived from our evidence synthesis, with reference to their expertise by experience or profession or both; and plan wider consultation on our emerging findings. Members of the expert reference group also contributed to the literature searches, data extraction, synthesis, and interpretation of data.

The stages of our RRR were based on the following five steps, variations of which have been described and used in previous studies [26,31,32]:

1. Developing and refining research questions
2. Literature searching and retrieving information (data/stakeholder views)
3. Screening and extracting information/data
4. Synthesizing information/data
5. Interpreting information/data

Our approach to these steps was iterative rather than linear, particularly for steps 3, 4, and 5, where there were multiple phases of extraction, synthesis, and interpretation. This is described in detail in the following section.

Developing and Refining the Research Question

We formulated the research question in response to policy maker needs. We reviewed findings from earlier stages of the MHPRU’s program on COVID-19 impact on mental health care and on telemental health [6,18,19,24,33] with policy makers, including senior officials and mental health teams in the Department for Health and Social Care, NHS England, and Public Health England. We then identified questions to be addressed from their perspective to plan for future implementation and delivery of telemental health. This included considering how best to incorporate telemental health in routine practice once the need for its emergency deployment passes. Early in these discussions, three priority groups regarding the evidence that is currently lacking were identified as especially important for policy and planning: children and young people, users of inpatient and crisis care services, and digitally excluded groups. Digitally excluded groups include those who have no or reduced access to the digital world because of a lack of digital skills (eg, using computers or smartphones), connectivity (eg, access to the internet or phone signal), and accessibility (eg, those who may require assistive technology or do not have access to digital devices or connectivity because of, eg, costs). Our primary question of which telemental health approaches work, for whom, and in what context originated in these discussions and was further refined by the MHPRU core research team who identified a RRR methodology as appropriate and further refined the primary and secondary questions and methodology with the expert reference group before registering the protocol.

Selection Criteria

Sources were included if they met the criteria described in the following sections.

Participants

Participants included staff working in the field of mental health, people receiving care from mental health services, family members, and other supporters of people receiving mental health care.

Interventions

Interventions included any form of remote (spoken or written) communication between mental health professionals, or among mental health professionals and service users, family members, and other supporters, using video calls, telephone calls, SMS text messaging services, or hybrid approaches combining face-to-face and web-based modalities. Peer support communications were also included alongside any strategies or training programs to support the implementation of the abovementioned interventions. Self-guided web-based support and therapy programs were excluded.

Types of Evidence

This included qualitative or quantitative evidence on (1) what improves or reduces adoption, reach, quality, acceptability, or clinical outcomes in the use of telemental health; (2) impacts of introducing interventions or strategies intended to improve adoption, reach, quality, acceptability, or clinical outcomes; (3) interventions or strategies intended to help mental health staff make more effective use of telemental health technologies; (4) impacts of telemental health on specific service user groups and settings, including people who are digitally excluded, users of inpatient and crisis care services, and children and young people; and (5) the appropriateness of the use of telemental health versus face-to-face care in particular contexts. In addition to outcomes, sources were required to include information on mechanisms (ie, what works, for whom, and how).

Study Design

This included any qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods study design, including relevant service evaluations, audits, and case series. Gray literature and other sources, such as websites, stakeholder feedback, and testimonies from provider organizations and service user and carer groups were also included. Sources were also included if the focus was not solely on remote working, but the results contained substantial data relevant to our research questions. Substantial data had to provide relevant and sufficient information on context, mechanisms, and outcomes and contribute to the development of overarching CMO configurations. Editorials, commentaries, letters, conference abstracts, and theoretical studies were excluded.

Search Strategy

The search strategy was in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (Figure 1) [34]. Resources and literature were identified through the sources described in the following paragraphs.

First, we screened peer-reviewed studies included in 2 previous reviews on telemental health conducted by the MHPRU. The umbrella review by Barnett et al [18] included systematic reviews, realist reviews, and qualitative meta-syntheses on remote working before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic [18]. The systematic review by Appleton et al [14] synthesized primary research on the adoption and impacts of telemental health approaches during the pandemic [14]. An updated search of the latter review was conducted on May 19, 2021.

Second, we worked with our expert reference group to identify additional peer-reviewed and gray literature. Searches were conducted on the websites of relevant national and international voluntary and statutory organizations identified by the expert reference group and by internet searches (eg, Mind and the Royal College of Psychiatrists). Identified literature was noted on a shared Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. This process was supported using Slack, a web-based messaging application, to coordinate this complex and rapidly changing process.

Finally, the MHPRU disseminated a call for evidence via Twitter and email to relevant organizations and individuals (such as charities supporting digital inclusion, chief information officers, and telehealth leads within NHS Trusts) inviting them to submit relevant evidence, including evaluations, audits, surveys, stakeholder feedback, and testimonies from provider organizations and service user and carer groups.

‎View this figure

Study Selection

References included in the umbrella and systematic review were downloaded and screened for inclusion in the RRR using EPPI-Reviewer (version 4.0) [35]. One of the reviewers screened abstracts and titles of the references identified through the updated searches of the umbrella review and systematic review. Full texts were reviewed for inclusion, with included and unsure sources checked by another reviewer. Sources were included in the final review if they met our inclusion criteria and provided relevant information for the development of CMO configurations. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with the wider research team.

Process of Data Extraction, Synthesis, and Interpretation

Data Extraction

The source characteristics were extracted and inputted on EPPI-Reviewer (version 4.0) [35]. Extracted characteristics included study aim and design (if applicable), type of service, telemental health modalities used, mental health diagnosis of service users, and staff occupation. MHPRU researchers screened each included source for information that could be assembled into CMO configurations related to telemental health (ie, information on contexts, outcomes, and underlying mechanisms). Underlying CMO configurations were extracted by MHPRU researchers and LEWG members. Underlying CMO extraction involved reading each source before identifying contexts, mechanisms, and outcome configurations that were either (1) identified by the authors in the paper or (2) identified by extractors by linking them together from the data, descriptions, and discussion in the paper. Each week, samples of the extracted CMO configurations were reviewed by the expert reference group to ensure coherence, relevance, validity, and format consistency.

Data Synthesis

The research team then began the process of synthesizing the underlying CMO configurations by reviewing the extracted CMO configurations and identifying emerging themes. We developed four domains to encapsulate key aspects of the evidence: (1) connecting effectively; (2) flexibility and personalization; (3) safety, privacy, and confidentiality; and (4) therapeutic quality and relationship. Each of the 4 identified domains was allocated to an MHPRU researcher to lead the synthesis, with input from LEWG members, clinicians, and MHPRU senior researchers.

To develop content for each of these 4 domains, underlying CMO configurations were, in essence, synthesized based on similarities to create a single overarching CMO (discussed in full detail in Multimedia Appendix 1). Underlying CMO configurations extracted from individual sources were reviewed in terms of their similarities and differences (eg, CMO configurations related to the convenience of telemental health) and then grouped together based on similar mechanisms (eg, flexibility, which reduces practical barriers to accessing mental health care) and outcomes (eg, increasing attendance and reducing missed appointments). Each similar group of underlying CMO configurations was then synthesized and refined to create a single overarching CMO, which reflected key content across the underlying CMO configurations, as well as input from the expert reference group. Each overarching CMO was assigned to 1 of the 4 domains.

Realist work does not conduct a traditional quality appraisal, as it values evidence from all sources in a nonhierarchical manner [27,29]. Our overarching CMO configurations were also significantly developed throughout the synthesis process based on stakeholder input, and thus, quality appraisal of individual study sources would not have reflected the quality of the final overarching CMO configurations.

Interpretation

An iterative process of revising and refining overarching CMO configurations from the perspective of stakeholder experience followed. Revisions, refinements, and additions were first made through discussion with the expert reference group. Summaries were then also discussed at three 2-hour stakeholder webinars, each focusing on one of our priority groups: children and young people, inpatient and crisis care services, and digitally excluded groups. The webinars were primarily attended by groups representing these constituencies and services who work with them, including experts and stakeholder representatives from research, policy, and clinical settings (nationally and internationally); the voluntary sector; lived experience groups and community organizations working with marginalized groups; and telehealth technology initiatives. There were between 30 and 40 participants at each webinar. During the webinars, participants were divided into breakout rooms, with a facilitator and a note taker from the core research team. High-level summaries of preliminary data were presented by domain, and attendees were asked to discuss the following questions: (1) whether the preliminary summaries captured their own knowledge and experience of telemental health, (2) whether the summaries applied to and how the summaries were relevant for the priority group at hand, and whether they were aware of any additional challenges or recommendations related to delivering telemental health to the priority group.

On the basis of the feedback from these webinars, the overarching CMO configurations within each of the 4 domains were then further revised and refined. We actively sought additional information related to each overarching CMO, including relevant contexts, further detail about mechanisms, real-life examples of strategies and solutions (such as for overcoming barriers identified within the CMO), and points of particular importance or concern, from the webinar notes, the expert reference group meetings, and related literature. We noted this information alongside the relevant overarching CMO and used it to refine the CMO configurations. In addition, we drew upon midrange theories (evidence-based theories derived from the wider literature) to provide more theoretically informed explanations of mechanisms (eg, the digital inverse care law [16], which theorizes that those most in need of care via telemental health are least likely to engage with it and existing inequalities will widen, helped to strengthen the mechanisms around digital exclusion). Throughout this process, the core research team and the expert reference group were iteratively consulted, and their feedback was integrated into the overarching CMO configurations. The revised theories were shared for a final email consultation with the stakeholders who were invited to our webinars. Their feedback was incorporated and resulted in the final overarching CMO models presented under each domain in this paper.

Results

Overview

Underlying CMO configurations were extracted from 17 studies included in the previous umbrella review [18] and from 45 studies included in the systematic review [14]. The updated search yielded 44 potentially relevant studies, of which 21 (48%) were excluded (either as they did not contain data on context, mechanisms, and outcomes or they added no additional information as data saturation had been reached). CMO configurations were extracted from 52% (12/23) of the remaining studies that met our inclusion criteria and were included in the realist synthesis. Through consultations with our expert reference group, we identified 28 sources, of which 16 (57%) met our inclusion criteria and provided additional information related to our priority groups, and 14 (50%) yielded CMO configurations that were included in the synthesis. We received 68 potential sources through the call for evidence, of which 22 (32%) met our inclusion criteria and provided relevant information on our priority groups; CMO configurations were extracted from 13 (19%) of these. Finally, website searches identified 52 potentially relevant sources, of which 13 (25%) met our inclusion criteria and 7 (13%) provided information relevant to CMO configurations. The realist synthesis includes a total of 108 sources.

Of the 108 included sources with primary data or detailed accounts of what works, for whom, and in what context, most were primary research studies (72/108, 66.7%), followed by service descriptions/evaluations/audits (19/108, 17.6%), guidance documents (4/108, 3.7%) and briefing papers (3/108, 2.8%), commentaries/editorials/discussions (4/108, 3.7%), and letters (2/108, 1.9%), as well as a review (1/108, 0.9%), news article (1/108, 0.9%), webpage (1/108, 0.9%), and a service user–led report (1/108, 0.9%). Of the 84 sources that included primary research data, 32 (38%) used quantitative methods, 19 (23%) used qualitative methods, and 33 (39%) used mixed methods (including n=2, 2% case studies).

Most sources were published in the United States (41/108, 38%) and the United Kingdom (34/108, 31.5%). The remaining sources collected data in Canada (7/108, 6.5%), the Dominican Republic (1/108, 0.9%), Australia (7/108, 6.5%), China (2/108, 1.9%), India (3/108, 2.8%), Egypt (1/108, 0.9%), and Nigeria (1/108, 0.9%), as well as 10 European countries, including Austria (1/108, 0.9%), France (1/108, 0.9%), Germany (1/108, 0.9%), Ireland (1/108, 0.9%), Italy (2/108, 1.9%), Netherlands (1/108, 0.9%), Portugal (1/108, 0.9%), Spain (1/108, 0.9%), Sweden (1/108, 0.9%), and Switzerland (1/108, 0.9%). Details of the included sources are presented in Multimedia Appendix 2 [12,19,24,36-153].

Overarching CMO configurations for each domain are summarized in Tables 1-4, and details of the underlying CMO configurations and summary notes on stakeholder discussions, which shaped the overarching CMO configurations, are presented in Multimedia Appendix 3 [12,19,24,36-153]. For each overarching CMO, we included examples of key contexts that are relevant for the CMO and examples of strategies and solutions addressing the challenges or opportunities identified in the CMO: these were drawn from underlying CMO configurations and stakeholder discussions. In the text outlining each domain, we also identify major midrange theories that elucidate mechanisms and outcomes for overarching CMO configurations.

Domain 1: Connecting Effectively

The content of this domain relates to establishing a good web-based connection to join a video call of sufficient quality or to engage in telemental health via phone or message, with a particular focus on digital exclusion. Table 1 outlines 7 overarching CMO configurations identified in relation to this domain, addressing issues concerning device and internet access (CMO 1.1 and CMO 1.2), technology training (CMO 1.3), the impact of preparation and technological disruptions (CMO 1.4 and CMO 1.5), the familiarity and usability of the platforms (CMO 1.6), and the acceptability of telemental health as an alternative to receiving no care during emergency situations (CMO 1.7). Three of the CMO configurations were related to trying to resolve three main challenges: (1) access to a charged, up-to-date device that enables internet access (CMO 1.1); (2) an internet (Wi-Fi or data) or signal connection (CMO 1.2); and (3) the knowledge, ability, and confidence to engage on the web (CMO 1.3). Much of the content relates to challenges service users encounter in engaging with telemental health; however, the literature and stakeholder discussion also yielded significant challenges for staff and service providers in the practicalities of connecting on the web.

Theories regarding the relationship between digital exclusion and other forms of exclusion and deprivation, as well as the potential of digital exclusion to amplify inequalities, contribute to our understanding of key mechanisms and outcomes in this domain. Widening inequalities have been described as an inevitable consequence of the expansion of the role of technology in health care, with loss of access to community facilities, such as libraries, making this a still greater risk during the pandemic [154]. The “digital inverse care law” [16] describes a tendency for groups in most need of care (eg, older people or people experiencing social deprivation) to be least likely to engage with technological forms of health care. This is highly salient in mental health care, given the strong associations between experiencing mental health challenges and experiencing one or, often, many forms of disadvantage [154].

Access to devices (CMO 1.1) is a contributor to digital exclusion, and groups who are especially likely to be affected include homeless individuals and people living in poverty, those receiving inpatient or crisis care, and young children who may not have their own devices. The type of device may be important for accessing telemental health. For example, smartphones may be less suitable for video therapy because of their small screens [155], although this may be less relevant for young people who are familiar with and consistently use smartphones for connecting on the web [156]. This raises future research questions around which types of digital devices work for whom and in what context when it comes to continuing telemental health treatment. It may also have implications for the provision of suitable equipment to certain populations.

Our consultations and the wider literature revealed that lack of access to good quality Wi-Fi, including poor Wi-Fi in hospitals and offices, was a further key barrier to the successful and equitable delivery of telemental health (CMO 1.2). It was emphasized that modernization of software and hardware, particularly within the NHS, is needed in many health care sites to allow for the requirements of telemental health. Service users also reported relying on their own mobile phone data to connect to telemental health services, often depleting their data completely after or during just one video call or consultation, which is expensive to replenish and may also deter engagement. This could amplify existing inequalities, leaving some service users at risk of digital exclusion and unable to access the internet and mental health support. Disruptions to telemental health appointments because of poor connections are a significant barrier to engagement (CMO 1.4). Our consultations and the existing literature highlighted the importance of having an alternate form of communication (eg, a telephone call) as a backup plan in case of a technology or connection failure [36,37,157,158].

We identified the importance of technology training and sustained formal and informal support for service users (CMO 1.3). Variations in the ability to use telemental health are likely to disproportionately affect certain service user populations, often groups who also experience high levels of need for mental health care and inequalities in its provision. This includes people living in deprived circumstances, people with cognitive difficulties, people with paranoia, or those who do not speak the same language as service providers. Understanding how to use technology is also important for service users’ social engagement and connection, which is relevant for wider recovery and citizenship [159-161]. Young children may also be disproportionately affected as they may not be able to resolve difficulties they experience during telemental health sessions without the help of their parents or other supporters.

For staff (CMO 1.3), our evidence suggests that staff training provided more widely and accessibly on using technology for telehealth would be helpful to ensure high-quality service provision and overcome barriers around staff not having time allocated to training or being reluctant to ask for support. Evidence suggests that there are also benefits of having access to technical support to troubleshoot issues during sessions [38], as well as of practicing new skills and learning with colleagues and peers [162].

The importance of the familiarity and usability of platforms was highlighted throughout our stakeholder consultations and weekly reference group meetings, as well as in the published literature (CMO 1.6), in keeping with previous research on the acceptability of telemedicine by service users [163]. Many of the platforms and devices commonly used for telemental health services, for example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, were not designed for use in health care settings and, therefore, may be less user-friendly. The importance of usability is emphasized by Nielsen and Landauer [164]; 3 of 5 main usability attributes of a program are that it should be easy to learn, efficient to use, and easy to remember. This is in keeping with our findings related to familiarity and usability in telemental health.

Finally, preparing service users for telemental health sessions was key (CMO 1.5). This was relevant across telemental health contexts; however, information tailored to individual communication needs may be especially helpful for service users who may experience additional challenges connecting on the web (eg, those who are inexperienced with technology or anxious about using telemental health, young children, older people, and people with cognitive difficulties). For people with significant sensory impairments, specialist adaptations will need to be available if telemental health is to be a viable modality (eg, mobile phones that flash when receiving a call or providing guidance in Braille or sign languages).

Domain 2: Flexibility and Personalization

Table 2 presents the CMO configurations, key contexts, and example strategies and solutions for the domain of flexibility and personalization. The need for flexibility and personalization was a key theme identified in both the literature and stakeholder consultations when considering using telemental health in place of (or in conjunction with) face-to-face mental health support. A total of eight overarching CMO configurations were identified in this domain, which can be divided into three main categories: taking individual preferences into account (CMO 2.1, CMO 2.5, and CMO 2.7), convenience (CMO 2.2), and allowing for more collaborative and potentially specialized care (eg, involving specialists, family, or friends in care; CMO 2.3, CMO 2.4, CMO 2.6, and CMO 2.8).

Our findings emphasize the importance of taking individual service user preferences into account when deciding whether to make use of telemental health, in selecting the modality of digital communication used (including the type of technology platform), and in decisions about involving others (clinicians or family members) in care. This finding underpins all other CMO configurations in this theme and coheres with theories regarding the importance of shared decision-making, collaborative care planning, and personalization in mental health care [165-167]. Involving service users and carers in decisions and care planning as part of a collaborative approach to mental health care has been identified as central to best practice [168]; for example, a review of collaborative care for depression and anxiety found this approach to be more effective than usual care in improving treatment outcomes [169].

Flexible use of telemental health was also identified as being beneficial in reducing barriers to accessing mental health support for some service users, particularly those who may struggle to access face-to-face services for reasons such as caring or work commitments, problems traveling (eg, because of a physical disability, anxiety, or lack of transport) or a reluctance to attend the stigmatizing places. Telemental health can also facilitate connections between clinicians, especially across different services or specialties, which can improve multidisciplinary working and collaboration across teams and agencies and provide service users with a wider range of specialists or support for specific groups. This approach has been identified as having salience in a mental health setting [170-172]. In some cases, telemental health was viewed by both service users and clinicians as more convenient, as it reduced the need for (and cost of) traveling to face-to-face appointments.

Telemental health was also seen as an important tool in inpatient wards, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic when visiting was restricted, as it allowed service users to stay in touch with family and friends and for them to be involved in their care. It also allowed staff supporting inpatients in the community to remain involved.

However, instances were identified where telemental health was not appropriate, and face-to-face care needs to be available. For example, some service users do not wish or feel able to receive care by remote means or do not wish to have all appointments by this means, whereas others may struggle with telemental health because of sensory or psychological factors or a lack of access to appropriate technology and internet connectivity.

Domain 3: Safety, Privacy, and Confidentiality

Table 3 presents the four overarching CMO configurations, key contexts, and example strategies and solutions for the domain of safety, privacy, and confidentiality. Key messages were the importance of ensuring the availability of a private space for both service users and clinicians (CMO 3.1), the potential for telemental health to provide privacy to some service users experiencing stigma (CMO 3.2), the importance of considering how to manage risk when using telemental health and the limits to how far this is possible (CMO 3.3), and data security and staff training (CMO 3.4).

With the most supporting literature, CMO 3.1 highlights the need for appropriate private space to receive telemental health and that many service users may not have consistent access to such a space. As a lack of privacy can risk breaches in confidentiality and safety for some, a key message was that alternatives such as face-to-face modalities or alternative times/locations to receive telemental health should be provided. The importance of privacy for effective mental health care has been frequently cited in the literature and is likely to be especially important in ensuring high-quality telemental health [91]. Although some literature indicated that some service users feel an increased sense of privacy and a reduction in stigma when not having to attend mental health clinics in person (CMO 3.2), a key message lies in providing a choice so that each individual can work with their clinicians to find ways of receiving care that they are happy with, a message highlighted in CMO configurations throughout this paper.

CMO configurations in this domain also make it clear that telemental health can result in greater risks, both directly as it may be more difficult for clinicians to assess and respond to risks (CMO 3.3) and indirectly if data security is impaired (CMO 3.4). In both cases, proactive steps to assess and limit risk before the use of telemental health, as well as preplanned strategies to respond to events that threaten safety, are important. Data security knowledge should not be assumed, and training to help staff keep service users’ personal information secure will also mitigate telemental health–specific risks. However, evidence from both the literature and the stakeholder consultations made it clear that it is difficult to fully overcome the obstacles to effective risk assessment and management that result from staff and service users being in different places, meaning that the continuing availability of an in-person community crisis response is also important.

Domain 4: Therapeutic Quality and Relationships

Table 4 displays the overarching CMO configurations, key contexts, strategies, and solutions for the final domain of therapeutic quality and relationships. Therapeutic relationships have been identified as pivotal for the successful delivery of telemental health across the literature and stakeholder consultations. The domain addresses barriers (CMO 4.1 and CMO 4.2) to and facilitators (CMO 4.3, CMO 4.4, CMO 4.5, and CMO 4.6) to the development of therapeutic relationships and delivery of quality care and discusses the impact of telemental health on staff well-being (CMO 4.7).

Trust and therapeutic relationships are important across health care, and relational aspects of care are especially crucial in mental health [173-178]. However, the reliance on telemental health platforms, particularly telephone and text-based communication, may affect communication and subsequently therapeutic relationships (CMO 4.1). Our CMO configurations, particularly their mechanisms, were informed by general theories regarding the role and development of therapeutic relationships in mental health care.

CMO 4.1. highlights that telemental health is likely to lead to a change or reduction in visual and nonverbal cues, including active listening and back channels, facial expressions, gestures, posture, and eye contact, which makes aspects of communication, such as pauses, difficult to interpret. In addition, time delays in video calls may create silences and lead to talking over each other and delayed visual responses, which negatively affect communication and nonverbal synchrony [179,180]. As a result, not only therapeutic relationships but also the staff’s ability to conduct accurate assessments are compromised (CMO 4.1 and CMO 4.2). However, conversely, good quality video contacts with well-trained clinicians may mitigate some of the therapeutic challenges when delivering telemental health. Those making first contact with mental health services appear to be particularly affected by the potentially impersonal nature of telemental health and thus benefit not only from an initial face-to-face session but also from more frequent subsequent telemental health sessions to establish stability and trust (CMO 4.1 and CMO 4.5). In addition, our findings indicate that staff confidence and ability to deliver good quality care and develop therapeutic relationships via telemental health can be fostered through training sessions provided by services (CMO 4.3).

The literature and stakeholder consultations identified no telemental health modality that is consistently superior for developing therapeutic relationships (CMO 4.4). Rather, whether telephone calls, video calls, or face-to-face meetings are most appropriate seems to depend on the purpose of the sessions and on an individual’s preferences based on their personal experiences and circumstances and whether they are new to the service, as well as the nature of their mental or physical health problems. Video calls seem to be preferred for more substantial and in-depth sessions than other telemental health modalities [24]. Providing service users with choice regarding the frequency, duration, and telemental health modality is crucial for therapeutic relationships and quality of care.

Despite its limitations, flexible use of different telemental health modalities can provide significant opportunities to foster therapeutic relationships and increase the quality of care, such as checking in, sending reminders via SMS text messages, and using features such as chat functions to increase engagement among service users (CMO 4.6).

Finally, taking breaks in between telemental health sessions and fostering positive telemental health working environments is key for staff well-being and the delivery of high-quality care (CMO 4.7).

Discussion

Principal Findings

Our RRR identified CMO configurations within four key domains, each with a range of practical implications regarding what works and for whom in telemental health: connecting effectively; flexibility and personalization; safety, privacy, and confidentiality; and therapeutic quality and relationship. Potentially, the most important finding of this realist review is the significance of personal choice and that one size does not fit all for telemental health. This includes choice of modality (eg, video, telephone, and text-based chat functions), platform, frequency or duration of sessions, and the option to revert to face-to-face sessions if preferred or required by the service user based on their current context or to vary modality from contact to contact. This review has highlighted that there are many contexts where face-to-face care is preferred or needed by service users, and this should be accessible and available to them and should be of equivalent timeliness to remote care (especially when delivered as part of routine care rather than as a response to a national emergency). However, the use of telemental health is a convenient and potentially advantageous option for some people in many contexts; thus, it is beneficial for mental health clinicians to have the skills and resources to offer telemental health as an option. When service users’ choices about what works for them are respected and decisions about care planning are made collaboratively, it is likely to be conducive to a stronger therapeutic relationship where the service user feels heard and respected [178].

Access to a device with a stable internet connection, as well as the confidence and ability to use a device to access telemental health, were identified as minimum requirements for both staff and service users to access telemental health, without which face-to-face appointments would be necessary. The devices and platforms used for delivering telemental health needed to be user-friendly [163,164], and preferably familiar, to easily facilitate sessions. Telemental health seemed to reduce some barriers to receiving mental health support experienced by some service users, such as those who were unable to travel or in inpatient wards, making it an acceptable alternative to face-to-face sessions for some people under these circumstances. It may also potentially allow service users greater access to out-of-area specialist services and support that is focused on specific groups (eg, cultural or lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer groups). Issues of privacy, including data protection and confidentiality, or staff and service user access to a private space were emphasized throughout the literature and our consultations; this is likely to disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups of service users, such as those experiencing poverty, those in multi-occupancy households, children and young people, or people living with controlling or abusive partners or other family members. Already disadvantaged groups are similarly at particularly high risk of inequalities being exacerbated through digital exclusion. The “inverse digital care law,” stating that the use of digital technologies can make health inequalities worse [154], may well apply to the widespread implementation of telemental health [16]. Service planning and delivery must be based on a strong awareness of these risks and the need to overcome these barriers. There is also a duty to ensure that in-person care of equivalent quality remains readily available.

The impact on therapeutic relationships for both staff and service users has also been highlighted, with difficulties interpreting visual or nonverbal cues being cited as a barrier to establishing a good therapeutic relationship that enables service users to disclose sensitive information and staff are able to conduct valid clinical assessments. Adapting to service user preferences flexibly and giving weight to self-reports during assessments is likely to increase the quality of care and foster strong therapeutic relationships.

Strengths and Limitations

The use of the RRR methodology to rapidly establish a set of theories about what works, for whom, and in which circumstances in telemental health has several strengths. The breadth of screened written evidence extends beyond published academic literature to nonacademic (including policy, third sector, and lived experience) sources. The targeted call for evidence sent directly to expert stakeholders from research, policy, and clinical settings (nationally and internationally), the voluntary sector, lived experience groups, minority groups, and representatives from health tech initiatives identified resources that would otherwise have been missed. Through these procedures, we rapidly identified literature from a wide range of key perspectives to contribute to the development of the CMO configurations.

The analysis process was rigorous and valued both published literature and stakeholder views, with the use of rapid realist methods allowing a range of stakeholder perspectives to be incorporated beyond what is normally possible in reviews. Our expert reference group (including clinical, academic, and lived experience experts) fed into the review process and theory development throughout, iteratively reviewing the plausibility, relevance, and usefulness of our individual and overarching CMO configurations. A wider group of expert stakeholders provided further input to identifying sources and reviewing overarching CMO configurations, especially regarding our priority groups: children and young people, users of inpatient and crisis care services, and digitally excluded populations. Continuous detailed feedback from the lived experience researchers and frontline clinicians helped to reduce bias toward academic perspectives; ensured the inclusion of a breadth of real-life experiences; and supported the iterative development of our methods, results, and interpretation of the findings.

A final key benefit of the RRR methodology is that we could rapidly investigate not only outcomes of telemental health use but also the mechanisms underlying what works and for whom, which most methodologies do not allow. We could also explore the contexts in which telemental health was implemented, as well as the telemental health resources that are available. This approach should be considered for future evaluation of telemental health.

Some limitations should be noted. The first relates to generalizations made in the process of developing overarching CMO configurations. These tended to combine underlying CMO configurations that related to a range of service user and clinician groups, service settings and types, and social and national contexts. We looked for important themes that appeared of general relevance and were validated through stakeholder consultation. However, it is likely that in some areas, we lost a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between particular CMO configurations and particular contexts. We also used a broad definition of telemental health to capture as much richness (and data) as possible from the available sources. However, we have merged heterogeneous forms of telemental health within most of our overarching CMO configurations, which may differ in their effectiveness and underlying mechanisms. Therefore, the conclusions are limited regarding mechanisms; outcomes for specific types of telemental health; and the impact on service users, staff, and carers. We also included literature that draws on the experiences of service users and clinicians both before and during the pandemic. However, technologies and approaches to implementation have changed substantially, with prepandemic evidence tending to focus on the planned and relatively small-scale implementation of tools specifically designed for mental health. Studies from the pandemic tend to relate to a range of phone and video call technologies implemented at scale with limited strategic planning. During the pandemic, staff and service users may also have been more willing to trial telemental health, given the extraordinary circumstances. The available technologies, and clinicians’ and service users’ skills in applying them, are also likely to have changed over time and are likely to continue to change.

The nature and strength of evidence drawn on for the review also need to be noted. Most sources were qualitative studies, service evaluations, or cross-sectional studies of associations; we found few relevant trials or longitudinal studies. We tried to maximize the value of this body of evidence by combining findings from multiple studies with expert stakeholder input to obtain theories with multiple sources of support about what works and for whom, illustrating them with example contexts and strategies. However, the lack of testing through traditionally robust methods in testing intervention strategies, such as trials and other longitudinal forms of evaluation, still needs to be noted, as discussed further in the Implications for Research section. In line with realist methodology [27,29], we did not appraise the sources we identified using traditional methods. However, sources were only included if they provided sufficient information on context, mechanism, and outcomes and contributed to the development of our overarching CMO configurations. Our extracted data were reviewed for their validity and coherence by our expert reference group.

Despite the inclusive search strategy and specific efforts to gain a wide range of perspectives, digitally excluded groups remain underrepresented in this study. This is partly because of the lack of literature focused on digital exclusion and the web-based methods used to conduct our review during the COVID-19 pandemic. Efforts were made to gain perspectives on digitally excluded groups by involving charities and staff and service user advocates working with people in such groups, including in projects aimed at addressing digital exclusion, in our stakeholder consultation. However, people experiencing severe digital exclusion did not participate in our web-based consultations, and the extent to which others can advocate for them is limited. Similarly, this study identified a lack of evidence in the literature about how to make telemental health engaging and effective for young children, nor were we able to find many people with relevant expertise to participate in our consultations. Data were also limited on group therapy and the role or experiences of families and other supporters of service users. Most available literature focused exclusively on staff perspectives of telemental health and crucially neglected to include the views or experiences of service users and their families or other supporters. Therefore, we were unable to incorporate these groups and their perspectives in our analysis and synthesis.

This study was initially planned and commissioned through discussions between policy makers in the Department of Health and Social Care and the MHPRU leads; lived experience researchers did not have the opportunity to contribute during the early stages of formulating research questions and identifying the methodology to be used.

Implications

Implications for Clinical Practice

A range of implications for clinical practice and service planning can be drawn from our CMO configurations. The challenge for the future will be to find sustainable ways of implementing them in clinical practice and finding an appropriate balance between telemental health and traditional face-to-face care in future service delivery. In the context of a recent emergency (the COVID-19 pandemic), telemental health has been used with some degree of success to maintain care for at least some service users. Evidence and experiences from this widespread emergency implementation are helpful, both to inform future responses to such emergencies and allow a preliminary assessment of potential opportunities and pitfalls in implementing telemental health beyond an emergency context.

Some clear principles to guide practice emerge from our CMO configurations. Offering choice, planning care collaboratively, and listening to personal preferences regarding whether to use telemental health need to be embedded within services in which there is continuous use of telemental health as we move through and out of the COVID-19 pandemic. How choice is negotiated, enabled, and communicated is crucial. For choice to be real, options need to be clearly explained and discussed at every stage; face-to-face care of equal quality should be delivered as promptly as telemental health; and choice should be seen as dynamic, especially when a service user is in crisis. Preferences should be reconfirmed regularly and hybrid forms of care made available if appropriate. Choices may also be different after the COVID-19 pandemic, when the risk of infection traveling to and at appointments may no longer be a concern and consultations are no longer masked; mask-wearing at most face-to-face appointments during the pandemic may undermine some advantages of in-person care. Ideally, service user and clinician choices and resources should be balanced through shared decision-making. Use of telemental health cannot be assumed to be a permanent switch; thus, preferences should be revisited regularly. In planning services, it may be easier to switch from in-person appointments to digital appointments than vice versa, and this needs to be considered in staffing and working space arrangements. Traditional inpatient and community services are limited in their ability to collaborate and provide choice in their established processes, such as care planning and risk assessment or management [177,178,181-183]. Therefore, it may be unrealistic to expect improvements in these areas when delivering telemental health.

Lack of access to digital devices or data, or of expertise in connecting to telemental health services, is a problem that service providers may be able to address for some people. For example, opportunities to develop skills and clear guidance and opportunities to practice may be relatively straightforward ways of alleviating problems with connecting effectively for some people who may find telemental health a convenient way of receiving care if they are supported to engage. At best, obtaining access to telemental health may be a skill acquired along with developing the skills to access a variety of other significant parts of the digital world. In other instances, clinicians and service providers should be aware that digital exclusion tends to be rooted in other forms of disadvantage and that they can most readily avoid exacerbating such disadvantages by offering face-to-face care. Persevering with telemental health when service users do not want to receive care by this means and are not in the habit of using digital technologies may prove futile in everyday clinical care. There is also likely to be scope for improving the extent to which service providers have the capacity to connect effectively, for example, through better infrastructure, clear guidance and training for staff, and clarity and flexibility regarding platforms.

Developing a therapeutic relationship is key for the quality and success of care, and offering initial appointments face-to-face may facilitate this, subject to service user choice. In addition, services and staff may need to consider how to adapt telemental health care to account for the change in visual cues, including body language and facial expressions (although visual cues in face-to-face sessions may, in any case, be compromised while infection control considerations mean most sessions are masked).

In addition, the domain of privacy, safety, and confidentiality has implications for clinical practice. Clinician awareness of potential risks associated with using telemental health is important and may steer them away from conducting some consultations in this way. Maintaining privacy and safety, for example, for people at risk within their homes, is also a significant reason to prioritize service user choice, especially choices not to accept telemental health appointments, as they may not readily be able to explain the basis for their choice. Clinicians need also to be aware of the challenges of assessing and responding to risk when using telemental health, including the advantages of face-to-face meetings; the need to give weight to service user reports where visual or verbal cues may be obscured; and the importance of backup plans, such as for disconnection or when an urgent response is needed. Clinicians and care coordinators could also helpfully ensure that service users have access to and can use telemental health care adequately before the agreed web-based sessions begin, although this may be affected by staffing issues and limited resources [184,185].

Implications for Policy

Digital poverty does not exist in isolation, and the experience of poverty may be the root cause of their digital exclusion. Providing service users with access to devices and the internet, for example, serves as an adequate short-term fix but does not address the systemic welfare issues experienced by many service users [186]. Strategies to mitigate digital exclusion could include the provision of good national Wi-Fi coverage, free broadband [187], and investment in accessible and connected community hubs; implementing these would require action from the government rather than health services.

Telemental health services seem to be a viable alternative to face-to-face care for some service users, including in emergency situations, such as COVID-19. To provide good telemental health services, investment is needed, for example, in providing telemental health–specific training and guidance, high-quality infrastructure, and potentially technological devices to staff and service users. Preregistration education and training should include skills in telemental health. Further investment is likely to be needed in updating this as evidence and technologies change (eg, to cover the ongoing costs of keeping hardware and software up to date). This may need to be balanced against any savings anticipated from implementing telemental health. This study has also highlighted the importance of service user and frontline staff involvement in the planning of all telemental health services and provision.

Implications for Research

Much of the included research was based on explorations of views and experiences of people participating in telemental health in various settings. We found few studies involving systematic evaluation of planned strategies to achieve high-quality implementation of telemental health in routine settings. Primary studies of this form would be valuable, potentially using implementation research and participatory action research models to explore outcomes and experiences of strategies aimed at good quality implementation of telemental health in varying real-world settings during and after the pandemic. Our CMO configurations have the potential to inform such a primary research study: it would be helpful to develop and test coproduced strategies for implementing principles encapsulated in the CMO configurations in real-world settings. Similarly, our understanding of what works and for whom in telemental health would be improved by conducting primary research with specific groups, particularly those excluded from previous studies, such as digitally excluded groups or peer support networks, and in specific contexts, such as in group therapy sessions. Identifying methods of reaching digitally excluded populations in research studies, as well as identifying groups for whom telemental health is not appropriate, would be helpful. This is likely to be labor and time intensive and needs appropriate funding. Future research could also usefully explore the use of different telemental health modalities individually and in more depth.

Choice has been emphasized as crucial in the use of telemental health. The mechanisms behind choices and collaborative decision-making would benefit from further investigation, potentially using realist methods and drawing on principles from shared decision-making research. Investigation is warranted of the best approaches to providing the information needed to make an informed choice, holding collaborative discussions on how to personalize care for each individual, and providing staff and service users with guidance and training needed to participate effectively in telemental health. At a provider level, evidence is needed on what makes a good telemental health platform, how to balance data security with the flexibility that service users and clinicians may value in choosing platforms and using familiar tools if possible, and how to adapt risk management to a telemental health context. However, trusts may compromise their ability to offer choice and flexibility to service users when they specify the platforms that can and cannot be used to deliver telemental health services (although this may have advantages, including increasing staff familiarity). Future work could helpfully investigate whether certain combinations of features, platforms, or modalities are optimal for service users, their carers, and clinicians.

Researchers conducting evaluations of telemental health should consider that satisfaction tends to be evaluated as one component. However, satisfaction with telemental health comprises several components that need to be individually considered. For example, the skills of therapists may be rated highly, whereas telemental health platforms themselves may cause significant frustration and, if they were scored separately, would be poorly rated. Therefore, telemental health needs to be evaluated as several elements rather than as a singularity.

The impact of telemental health delivery on staff is a further key area of investigation. Some staff in research studies and in our stakeholder consultations reported finding prolonged screen use draining and perceived it as a contributor to burnout. The impact of telemental health on staff and ways of ensuring that it does not increase burnout or physical or psychological stress requires investigation. It may be pertinent to investigate whether services function better, and staff and service users are more satisfied, when certain staff become telemental health specialists, as opposed to asking all users to engage with it for some appointments.

A final key consideration is that any future research into telemental health should include lived experience knowledge, expertise, and views, including those from digitally excluded groups. Working remotely as a research team can facilitate the inclusion of a range of key stakeholders who might otherwise not be able to attend face-to-face meetings, promote ongoing communication, and simplify the coordination of tasks. However, similarly to telemental health care, it can also lead to the exclusion of already marginalized groups, such as digitally excluded people. There is a need to fund research designed and led by people with lived experience of mental health service use.

Lived Experience Commentary

The lived experience commentary written by KM, RRO, and PS is shown in Textbox 1.