Skip to main content

Abstract

Objective:

The study examined the use of telepsychiatry in U.S. mental health facilities between 2010 and 2017.

Methods:

Changes over time in the availability of telepsychiatry were examined by using multiple waves of a national survey of mental health facilities. State and facility correlates of offering telepsychiatry in 2017 were examined.

Results:

The proportion of state facilities that self-reported offering telepsychiatry increased significantly from 15.2% in 2010 to 29.2% in 2017, with wide variability among states. In 2017, facilities with telepsychiatry were more commonly publicly owned than to have others forms of ownership (odds ratio [OR]=2.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.47–2.99, p<0.001), although the percentage of privately owned facilities offering telepsychiatry has increased significantly since 2010 (OR=2.94, 95% CI=2.14–4.05, p<.001). Facilities offering telepsychiatry had lower odds of receiving funding from Medicaid (OR=0.86, 95% CI=0.75–0.98, p<0.001) but higher odds of receiving funding from all other sources. Facilities in states that did not fund telepsychiatry had lower odds of offering these services in 2017 (OR=0.57, 95% CI=0.51–0.62, p<0.001). Telepsychiatry was more commonly offered in states with higher proportions of rural population (OR=1.64, 95% CI=1.45–1.85, p<0.001) and designated medically underserved areas (OR=1.36, 95% CI=1.25–1.47, p<0.001), compared with other states.

Conclusions:

Nearly twice as many U.S. mental health facilities offered telepsychiatry in 2017 than in 2010. Medicaid funding lagged behind other funding sources, suggesting state administrative barriers. Telepsychiatry was commonly used by facilities in medically underserved and rural areas.

HIGHLIGHTS

National availability of telepsychiatry services in mental health facilities has expanded rapidly, with nearly twice as many facilities offering telepsychiatry services in 2017 than in 2010.
Telepsychiatry is generally well funded, though Medicaid coverage is not uniform among states, suggesting state administrative barriers.
Private ownership has increased, bringing new potential engines for growth.
Increased use of telepsychiatry among populations with greater barriers to access, such as those residing in rural and underserved areas, continues to show promise in bringing mental health services to those with the greatest need.
Telemedicine has received increasing attention in the medical community (1, 2), including in psychiatry (3), where it is often referred to as telepsychiatry. Telemedicine has also been successfully used in collaborative models of mental health treatment (4). Technological advances, including widespread use of broadband and increased availability of relevant equipment, have been cited as a reason for recent expansion in telemedicine use (5), although limited funding remains a major barrier to more extensive use of this service (3). Telemedicine has been embraced by the Veterans Affairs (VA) administration (6) as well as by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) (3, 7), leading to increased dissemination of these services. Advantages of properly deployed telemedicine platforms include improved access to treatment, increased flexibility in treatment delivery, and reduction in costs, all of which can be achieved while maintaining security and privacy (5, 8, 9).
Telemedicine is well received by patients (10, 11), including psychiatric patients (12), and has been found to be generally safe and effective (1115), although some concerns exist regarding comparability with in-person care (12, 16).
Although recent cross-sectional studies examined telepsychiatry use (3) and its acceptability and effectiveness (12), few studies have examined recent trends in telepsychiatry and its correlates at a national level. To address this gap in research, this study analyzed national data from the 2010–2017 waves of the National Mental Health Services Survey (NMHSS) in conjunction with data from the State Profiling System, the 2010 U.S. Census, and the HRSA medically underserved designation to assess recent trends in the use of telepsychiatry in mental health care settings as well as facility-level and state-level factors that potentially contributed to greater dissemination of telepsychiatry across these settings.
More specifically, we first explored the national distribution and characteristics of facilities that offered telepsychiatry services and assessed other services offered at these facilities. Next, we assessed the association of state funding and regulations with the likelihood of offering telepsychiatry. Finally, we examined telepsychiatry use among facilities in rural and underserved areas.

Methods

Data on facility characteristics and service offerings were collected by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) as part of the NMHSS, from 2010 through 2017 (17). Data collection methods were described extensively in survey documentation (17). Briefly, the NMHSS is a nationwide self-report survey assessing mental health facilities that is compiled to assist federal and state governments and other entities in assessing the nature, scope, and distribution of services and to keep an updated national directory of mental health facilities. Potential participants were defined as “any facility that provide[s] mental health treatment services to people with mental illness” identified from a national inventory maintained and updated yearly from information provided by state mental health agencies and other entities for treatment purposes (17). SAMHSA staff contacted eligible site administrators, supplied survey materials, provided reminders and technical support, and contacted the facilities directly to address problems with response inconsistencies or missing data (17). The following definition of telepsychiatry was provided to the respondents: “the ability for health care providers, working from a distance using telecommunications technology, to communicate with patients, diagnose conditions, provide treatment, and discuss health care issues with other providers to ensure quality health care services are provided. Other names used for this treatment approach are: e-medicine, e-psychiatry, and telepsychiatry” (17).
All data used in this study, including data from the NMHSS, are publicly available, and no individuals or facilities were identified. As such, institutional review board approval was not required.
Analyses were conducted in three stages. First, trends in offering telepsychiatry services were examined over the 2010–2017 period by using NMHSS data from the years 2010, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. In addition, differences between 2010 and 2017 in the characteristics of facilities offering telepsychiatry were explored.
Second, we compared facilities that reported offering telepsychiatry in 2017 with those that did not with regard to ownership, licensing, funding, and treatment setting using unadjusted logistic regression models. This study additionally assessed mental health services that are often provided via telemedicine. These included medication management (18), individual therapy (19, 20), suicide prevention (9, 2123), crisis services (2224), services geared toward treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (19, 25, 26), substance abuse treatment (27, 28), services focused on individuals with serious mental illness (21, 29), integrated primary care (6, 30, 31), and tobacco cessation services (32). The ability to provide services in Spanish and other non-English languages was assessed to evaluate availability of telepsychiatry to non-English-speaking populations.
In the third stage of analysis, other state-level data were linked to the NMHSS. The State Profiling System, a national system that collects annual standardized data reported by health centers on behalf of SAMHSA (33), was used to assess possible associations between direct state funding of and regulatory initiatives promoting the use of telepsychiatry and whether facilities offered telepsychiatry. To assess state telemedicine funding, state mental health agency (SMHA) officials were asked whether telemedicine was reimbursed in their state by SMHA funds and state Medicaid agency funds. To assess the state’s role in promoting telemedicine, SMHA officials were directly asked about SMHA initiatives to expand the use of telemedicine. We used the 2010 U.S. Census data (34) to stratify states on the basis of the proportion of rural population to test for any differences in telepsychiatry use in states identified as predominantly rural versus predominantly urban. We used HRSA data (7) to compare telepsychiatry use between states with a larger proportion of underserved areas and other states.
Unadjusted binary logistic regression models were used in cross-sectional analyses. To compare the 2010 wave with the 2017 wave of NMHSS data, we used generalized estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust estimators linked by state to account for clustering. All analyses were conducted using SPSS software, version 23 (IBM).

Results

Data on the use of telemedicine were available for 9,002 (86.8%) of 10,374 facilities included in the NMHSS survey in 2010; 13,675 (99.0%) of 13,807 of facilities in 2012; 13,046 (99.0%) of 13,176 facilities in 2014; 12,822 (99.9%) of 12,826 facilities in 2015; 11,591 (95.2%) of 12,172 facilities in 2016; and 11,576 (99.9%) of 11,582 facilities in 2017. The NMHSS was not administered in 2011 and 2013.
Telepsychiatry use increased over time, from 15.2% of facilities (N=1,580) in 2010 to 29.2% (N=3,385) in 2017 (odds ratio [OR]=2.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.96–2.69, p<0.001; Newey-West trend beta coefficient=1.77, standard error [SE]=0.20, p<0.001; Figure 1). However, as of 2017, there was considerable variability among states in the percentage of facilities offering telepsychiatry (Figure 2), ranging from less than 15% of facilities to over 60%. In many states (N=17), 30%–45% of the facilities offered telepsychiatry services (Figure 2B). Although telepsychiatry offerings increased over time, there was also significant variability among states in this regard (Figure 2). Although in many states (N=17) there was an increase of 10% to 20% in the proportion of facilities offering telepsychiatry from 2010 to 2017, some states (N=5) experienced an increase of over 30%, whereas others (N=5) experienced a decrease (Figure 2).
FIGURE 1. Proportion of U.S. mental health facilities offering telepsychiatry services in 2010 through 2017a
aSource: National Mental Health Services Survey. The survey was not conducted in 2011 and 2013. Vertical bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
FIGURE 2. Proportion of U.S. mental health facilities in each state that offered telepsychiatry services (A) in 2017 and (B) in 2017 compared with 2010a
aThe number of states in each category is listed in parentheses.
There were numerous differences between facilities that did or did not offer telepsychiatry in 2017, as shown in Table 1. Compared with facilities that did not offer telepsychiatry, facilities that offered this service were more likely to be publicly owned than to have other forms of ownership (30.1% vs. 13.7%; OR=2.72, 95% CI=2.47–2.99, p<0.001), although private ownership was higher in 2017 than in 2010 (13.7% vs. 5.1%, respectively; OR=2.94, 95% CI=2.14–4.05, p<0.001 [data not shown]).
TABLE 1. Association between characteristics of 11,576 U.S. mental health facilities and likelihood of offering telepsychiatry in 2017
 Offered telepsychiatryDid not offer telepsychiatry
CharacteristicN%N%OR95% CIp
Total3,38529.28,19170.8
Facility ownershipa       
 Private46513.71,58519.4.66.59–.74<.001
 Nonprofit1,90256.25,48767.0.63.58–.69<.001
 Public1,01830.11,11913.72.722.47–2.99<.001
Facility fundinga,b      
 Federal (any)2,83886.85,55571.52.642.35–2.95<.001
 Medicare2,55378.05,38767.11.731.57–1.90<.001
 Veterans Affairs1,16343.01,37121.22.812.55–3.10<.001
 State (any)2,99092.27,73995.7.53.45–.63<.001
 Medicaid2,92689.47,35390.8.86.75–.98.027
 SMHA2,14572.54,49964.81.431.31–1.58<.001
 Other state1,81861.73,78154.51.351.23–1.47<.001
 Local government1,74160.03,76954.31.261.16–1.38<.001
 CSBG1,00537.91,49923.51.981.80–2.19<.001
 CMHG1,45852.62,11732.72.282.08–2.49<.001
 Private insurance2,92188.76,33978.62.151.91–2.43<.001
 Self-pay2,93089.26,74583.71.601.42–1.82<.001
 Sliding scalec2,08568.44,22551.82.011.84–2.19<.001
 Pro bonoc1,79258.74,04149.61.451.33–1.58<.001
Treatment settinga       
 Inpatient52915.61,34516.5.94.84–1.04.231
 Residential39411.61,60719.6.54.48–.61<.001
 Outpatient3,06590.56,25676.42.962.61–3.60<.001
Service languaged       
 Spanish1,06395.92,79493.91.531.10–2.14<.001
 Other non-English26625.090032.2.70.60–.83<.001
Services offeredd       
 Medication3,13792.76,30677.03.783.29–4.35<.001
 Suicide prevention2,46872.94,13250.52.652.42–2.89<.001
 Crisis team2,16764.13,45842.32.452.24–2.65<.001
 Tobacco cessation2,31068.24,31152.61.931.78–2.10<.001
 Integrated primary care1,18434.91,67820.52.0831.91–2.28<.001
 Substance abuse treatment2,35169.54,11050.22.262.07–2.46<.001
 Therapy3,26796.57,28188.93.462.84–4.21<.001
 PTSD treatment1,29138.22,50730.61.401.29–1.52<.001
 Services focusing on serious mental illness1,72551.03,39141.41.471.36–1.60<.001
a
Each category was compared with all other categories combined.
b
Some facilities had multiple sources of funding. SMHA, state mental health agency; CSBG, community services block grant; CMHG, community mental health grant.
c
Some facilities offered both sliding-scale and pro bono services.
d
The reference group was not offering the language or service.
Facilities that offered telepsychiatry had higher odds of being funded by federal and local government sources, as well as by private insurance, self-pay, and grant funding compared with facilities without telepsychiatry, as shown in Table 1. These facilities had lower odds than other facilities of being funded by Medicaid (OR=0.86, 95% CI=0.75–0.98, p<.001). Fewer facilities with telepsychiatry were funded by state mental health agencies in 2017 than in 2010 (70.5% vs. 77.6%; OR=0.69, 95% CI=0.58–.082, p<0.001 [data not shown]).
Compared with other facilities, those with telepsychiatry were more commonly outpatient and less commonly residential-type facilities (Table 1). Furthermore, services in Spanish were more commonly offered at facilities that offered telepsychiatry compared with those that did not.
Compared with facilities that did not offer telepsychiatry, those that did had higher odds of offering a variety of other mental health services (Table 1). The odds were highest for basic mental health services, including pharmacotherapy (OR=3.78, 95% CI=3.29–4.35, p<0.001) and individual therapy (OR=3.46, 95% CI=2.84–4.21, p<0.001). The odds of offering general health services were nearly double at facilities with telepsychiatry compared with other facilities, including integrated primary care (OR=2.08, 95% CI=1.91–2.28, p<0.001) and tobacco cessation services (OR=1.93, 95% CI=1.78–2.10, p<0.001). As shown in Table 1, the odds of crisis services (OR=2.45, 95% CI=2.24–2.65, p<0.001) and suicide prevention services (OR=2.65, 95% CI=2.42–2.89, p<0.001) being offered were nearly two-and-a-half times higher at these facilities.
An analysis of state profiling data revealed that states that did not provide direct state funding for telemedicine had lower odds of offering telepsychiatry services (19.3% vs. 29.8%; OR=0.57, 95% CI=0.51–0.62, p<.001; Table 2). This association persisted after the adjustment for regulatory initiatives (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=0.55, 95% CI=0.50–0.61, p<0.001).
TABLE 2. Association between state characteristics and whether state mental health facilities offered telepsychiatry in 2017
 Offered telepsychiatryDid not offer telepsychiatry
State characteristicN%N%OR95% CIp
Total3,38529.28,19170.8
State telemedicine funding in 2010a,b,c       
 SMHA funds1,99859.24,15851.31.381.27–1.49<.001
 Medicaid funding2,49674.94,96761.71.861.70–2.04<.001
 Neither SMHA nor Medicaid65219.32,41329.8.57.51–.62<.001
State telemedicine initiativesa,b       
 Promote use in 201073722.11,87423.6.92.84–1.01.093
 Promote use in 20152,22986.04,69285.11.08.43–2.68.873
 Promote use in 2010 and 201554617.31,33818.0.96.86–1.07.432
State rural population (%)a,d       
 0–19.991,51044.64,47254.6.67.62–.73<.001
 20–39.991,39541.22,96836.21.231.14–1.34<.001
 ≥4048014.27519.21.641.45–1.85<.001
Proportion of underserved countiese       
 >80% (reference: ≤20%)2,13863.24,54755.91.361.25–1.47<.001
a
Each category was compared with all other categories combined.
b
From the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s state 2010 Uniform Reporting Service/state profiling data.
c
SMHA, state mental health agency.
d
Source: 2010 U.S. Census.
e
From the Health Resources and Services Administration medically underserved designation data. Only states that had at least one county with an underserved area were included. For some states that do not use the county system, county equivalents were used.
Using the 2010 U.S. Census data to stratify states by proportion of rural population revealed notable differences in telepsychiatry use. Compared with facilities without telepsychiatry services, facilities with telepsychiatry had lower odds of operating in states with a lower proportion of rural population (OR=0.67, 95% CI=0.62–0.73, p<.001) and higher odds of operating in states with a higher proportion of rural population (OR=1.64, 95% CI=1.45–1.85, p<0.001; Table 2). The increase in proportion of facilities with telepsychiatry from 2010 to 2017 was highest in states with a rural population of 40% or more (39.0% in 2017 versus 19.5% in 2010; OR=2.63, 95% CI=2.17–3.19, p<0.001 [data not shown]).
Facilities in states with a higher proportion of HRSA-designated medically underserved areas (>80%) were more likely to offer telepsychiatry than states with a lower proportion of medically underserved areas (63.2% vs. 55.9%, respectively; OR=1.36, 95% CI=1.25–1.47, p<0.001; Table 2).

Discussion

Telepsychiatry use has expanded significantly in the United States over the past few years, with nearly twice as many facilities reporting telepsychiatry use in 2017 than in 2010. Nearly a third of facilities reported offering telepsychiatry in 2017, although significant variability existed among states, ranging from less than 15% of facilities in some states to over half of the facilities in other states. Additionally, increase in the use of telepsychiatry has been uneven among states. Although the general trends are consistent with previous findings (2, 3, 16), examination of facility characteristics, facility service offerings, state funding, and regulatory environment, as well as clinical need, shed further light on the current state of telepsychiatry in the United States.
Examination of facility characteristics helps to create a broad snapshot of the types of facilities that offer telepsychiatry. In 2017, public ownership was more common than other forms of ownership at facilities with telepsychiatry, although there has been an increase in private ownership, with the odds of private for-profit ownership among facilities with telepsychiatry having increased nearly three times in 2017 compared with 2010. Private for-profit facilities may be embracing telepsychiatry as traditional barriers—including technological (3, 5, 35), regulatory, and legal (35, 36)—as well as issues with provider licensing (35, 37) are increasingly overcome. There is growing evidence for a favorable cost–benefit profile of telemedicine, leading to development of sustainable business models (35) and making these services more attractive to private investment (38).
Numerous funding differences exist between mental health facilities that offer telepsychiatry and those that do not. Broadly speaking, facilities that offered telepsychiatry had higher odds of receiving funding from all sources other than state Medicaid. The difference between these facilities and those that did not offer telepsychiatry were particularly pronounced in VA funding, grant, and private insurance funding. Increased odds of VA funding are not surprising, given significant work and appreciable progress within the VA system in promoting and disseminating telemedicine (6, 26, 39).
The lower odds of state Medicaid as a funding source of facilities offering telepsychiatry is problematic, given that Medicaid is noted to be a “key determinant of telehealth adoption” (3). This finding is puzzling, as the federal Medicaid statute allows reimbursement of telemedicine as a regular service (35) and may reflect the effect of state Medicaid regulatory hurdles. There is marked heterogeneity among states with regard to Medicaid reimbursements of telemedicine (3). There have not been significant changes in this regard between 2010 and 2017, suggesting that such barriers persist.
Facilities offering telepsychiatry also tended to offer a broad range of other services. In particular, telepsychiatry use in conjunction with substance abuse services has the potential to tangibly reduce morbidity as well as mortality among individuals with opioid use disorders (35), in part, by increasing the availability and monitoring of medication-assisted treatment therapy for patients with opioid use disorders (40). The increased odds of offering substance abuse services among facilities that offer telepsychiatry suggests that this strategy is being actively explored by facilities and is consistent with previous findings (3). Services geared toward specific populations, such as individuals with PTSD or serious mental disorders, are also more commonly offered at facilities offering telepsychiatry, which has the potential to significantly improve engagement of these often difficult-to-reach populations.
Studying state characteristics helped explain some of the variability in the distribution and recent change of telepsychiatry use. State funding was strongly associated with telemedicine, with significantly fewer facilities offering telepsychiatry in states that did not support telemedicine (a difference of 10 percentage points), which is consistent with previous findings showing that cost and reimbursement are often perceived as the primary barrier to telemedicine use (3). Facilities that offered telepsychiatry had significantly lower odds of operating in states without direct state financial support.
However other state initiatives were not significantly associated with offering telemedicine, consistent with previous findings noting that regulations and policies were not among the major barriers to telemedicine implementation (3).
The increased use of telepsychiatry in more rural states is encouraging and suggests that telepsychiatry is being used to overcome geographic barriers to care. States with the highest proportions of rural populations experienced the greatest increase in telepsychiatry use. It was also encouraging to note the increased use of telepsychiatry in states with the highest proportion of HRSA-designated underserved areas. HRSA has supported telemedicine as a method of improving access to care via funding and technical assistance (3).
Consideration should be given to this study’s limitations in interpreting results. First, the unit of analysis was facility, and no patient-level data were available. Additionally, some of the services offered in facilities with telepsychiatry may not have been offered via telecommunication. Second, the definition of telepsychiatry used in the NMHSS is broad and inclusive and did not differentiate among different technologies involved or specific ways in which telepsychiatry is used within a facility. Finally, unmeasured parameters, such as the size of the facilities or connection to academic centers, may have independently affected availability of services and could potentially explain some of the differences between states in the percentage of facilities that offer telepsychiatry.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the national availability of telepsychiatry services has expanded rapidly, with nearly twice as many facilities offering telepsychiatry services in 2017 than in 2010. Study results also show that facilities with telepsychiatry are generally well funded from a variety of sources, although challenges remain with Medicaid coverage, and that state funding has an appreciable link to whether telepsychiatry is offered. Additionally, significant inroads with private entities may bring new economic engines of growth to telepsychiatry. Facilities with telepsychiatry offer a variety of services to a wide range of populations, and the increased use of these services among populations with greater barriers to access, such as those residing in rural and underserved areas, continues to promise that such services will be made available to patients with the greatest need.

Supplementary Material

File (appi.ps.201900261.ds001.pdf)

References

1.
Kane CK, Gillis K: The use of telemedicine by physicians: still the exception rather than the rule. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018; 37:1923–1930
2.
Barnett ML, Ray KN, Souza J, et al: Trends in telemedicine use in a large commercially insured population, 2005–2017. JAMA 2018; 320:2147–2149
3.
Lin CC, Dievler A, Robbins C, et al: Telehealth in health centers: key adoption factors, barriers, and opportunities. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018; 37:1967–1974
4.
Fortney JC, Pyne JM, Edlund MJ, et al: A randomized trial of telemedicine-based collaborative care for depression. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22:1086–1093
5.
Strode SW, Gustke S, Allen A: Technical and clinical progress in telemedicine. JAMA 1999; 281:1066–1068
6.
Darkins A, Ryan P, Kobb R, et al: Care coordination/home telehealth: the systematic implementation of health informatics, home telehealth, and disease management to support the care of veteran patients with chronic conditions. Telemed J E Health 2008; 14:1118–1126
7.
Uniform Data System Reporting Instructions for 2016 Health Center Data. Rockville, MD, Health Resource and Services Administration. Available from https://bphc.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/bphc/datareporting/reporting/2016udsreportingmanual.pdf. Accessed Aug 26, 2019
8.
Noel HC, Vogel DC, Erdos JJ, et al: Home telehealth reduces healthcare costs. Telemed J E Health 2004; 10:170–183
9.
Jong M: Managing suicides via videoconferencing in a remote northern community in Canada. Int J Circumpolar Health 2004; 63:422–428
10.
Callahan EJ, Hilty DM, Nesbitt TS: Patient satisfaction with telemedicine consultation in primary care: comparison of ratings of medical and mental health applications. Telemed J 1998; 4:363–369
11.
Xu T, Pujara S, Sutton S, et al: Telemedicine in management of type 1 diabetes. Prev Chronic Dis 2018; 15:E13
12.
Hubley S, Lynch SB, Schneck C, et al: Review of key telepsychiatry outcomes. World J Psychiatry 2016; 6:269–282PubMed
13.
Perle JG, Nierenberg B: How psychological telehealth can alleviate society’s mental health burden: a literature review. J Technol Hum Serv 2013; 31:22–24
14.
Koehler F, Koehler K, Deckwart O, et al: Efficacy of telemedical interventional management in patients with heart failure (TIM-HF2): a randomised, controlled, parallel-group, unmasked trial. Lancet 2018; 392:1047–1057
15.
Hilty D, Yellowlees PM, Parrish MB, et al: Telepsychiatry: effective, evidence-based, and at a tipping point in health care delivery? Psychiatr Clin North Am 2015; 38:559–592
16.
Uscher-Pines L, Mulcahy A, Cowling D, et al: Access and quality of care in direct-to-consumer telemedicine. Telemed J E Health 2016; 22:282–287
17.
National Mental Health Services Survey (N-MHSS): 2014. Data on Mental Health Treatment Facilities. BHSIS Series S-87, HHS pub no (SMA) 16-5000. Rockville, MD, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2016
18.
Hungerbuehler I, Valiengo L, Loch AA, et al: Home-based psychiatric outpatient care through videoconferencing for depression: a randomized controlled follow-up trial. JMIR Ment Health 2016; 3:e36
19.
Gros DF, Yoder M, Tuerk PW, et al: Exposure therapy for PTSD delivered to veterans via telehealth: predictors of treatment completion and outcome and comparison to treatment delivered in person. Behav Ther 2011; 42:276–283
20.
Berryhill MB, Halli-Tierney A, Culmer N, et al: Videoconferencing psychological therapy and anxiety: a systematic review. Fam Pract 2019; 36:53–63
21.
Kasckow J, Zickmund S, Rotondi A, et al: Development of telehealth dialogues for monitoring suicidal patients with schizophrenia: consumer feedback. Community Ment Health J 2014; 50:339–342
22.
Yellowlees P, Burke MM, Marks SL, et al: Emergency telepsychiatry. J Telemed Telecare 2008; 14:277–281
23.
Seidel RW, Kilgus MD: Agreement between telepsychiatry assessment and face-to-face assessment for emergency department psychiatry patients. J Telemed Telecare 2014; 20:59–62
24.
Bhandari G, Tiessen B, Snowdon A: Meeting community needs through leadership and innovation: the case of virtual psychiatric emergency department (ED). Behav Inf Technol 2011; 30:517–523
25.
Painter JT, Fortney JC, Austen MA, et al: Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine-based collaborative care for posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatr Serv 2017; 68:1157–1163
26.
Kruse CS, Atkins JM, Baker TD, et al: Factors influencing the adoption of telemedicine for treatment of military veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. J Rehabil Med 2018; 50(5):385–392
27.
Weintraub E, Greenblatt AD, Chang J, et al: Expanding access to buprenorphine treatment in rural areas with the use of telemedicine. Am J Addict 2018; 27:612–617
28.
Molfenter T, Boyle M, Holloway D, et al: Trends in telemedicine use in addiction treatment. Addict Sci Clin Pract 2015; 10:14
29.
D’Souza R: Improving treatment adherence and longitudinal outcomes in patients with a serious mental illness by using telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare 2002; 8(suppl 2):113–115
30.
Ajadi A, Fortney F: Telepsychiatry in integrated care settings. Focus 2017; 15:257–263
31.
Pratt SI, Bartels SJ, Mueser KT, et al: Feasibility and effectiveness of an automated telehealth intervention to improve illness self-management in people with serious psychiatric and medical disorders. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2013; 36:297–305
32.
Richter KP, Shireman TI, Ellerbeck EF, et al: Comparative and cost effectiveness of telemedicine versus telephone counseling for smoking cessation. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17:e124
33.
State Profiling System. Falls Church, VA, NRI. Available from https://www.nri-inc.org/our-work/projects/state-profiling-system/. Accessed Aug 26, 2019
34.
Decennial Census of Population and Housing. Washington, DC, US Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/data/datasets.2010.html
35.
LeRouge C, Garfield MJ: Crossing the telemedicine chasm: have the US barriers to widespread adoption of telemedicine been significantly reduced? Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013; 10:6472–6484
36.
Zubrow M, Witzke A, Reynolds H: Legal, regulatory and ethical issues in the use of telemedicine; in Telemanagement of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Edited by Cross RK, Watson, AR. Cham, Switzerland, Springer, 2016
37.
Jacobson PD, Selvin E: Licensing telemedicine: the need for a national system. Telemed J E Health 2000; 6:429–439
38.
Hong YA: Medical tourism and telemedicine: a new frontier of an old business. J Med Internet Res 2016; 18:e115
39.
Adams SV, Mader MJ, Bollinger MJ, et al: Utilization of interactive clinical video telemedicine by rural and urban veterans in the Veterans Health Administration health care system. J Rural Health 2019; 35:308–318
40.
Mahmoud H, Vogt E: Telepsychiatry: an innovative approach to addressing the opioid crisis. J Behav Health Serv Res 2019; 46:680–685

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Psychiatric Services
Go to Psychiatric Services
Psychiatric Services
Pages: 121 - 127
PubMed: 31615370

History

Received: 23 May 2019
Revision received: 24 July 2019
Accepted: 8 August 2019
Published online: 16 October 2019
Published in print: February 01, 2020

Keywords

  1. Telecommunications
  2. Service delivery systems
  3. Mental Health Treatment Facilities
  4. Telehealth
  5. Mental Health service access

Authors

Details

Stanislav Spivak, M.D. [email protected]
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore (S. Spivak, Cullen, Meuchel, Johnston, Mojtabai); National Trafficking Shelter Alliance, Baltimore (A. Spivak); Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore (Cullen, Mojtabai); Johns Hopkins Health Systems, Baltimore (Chernow, Green).
Amethyst Spivak, J.D.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore (S. Spivak, Cullen, Meuchel, Johnston, Mojtabai); National Trafficking Shelter Alliance, Baltimore (A. Spivak); Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore (Cullen, Mojtabai); Johns Hopkins Health Systems, Baltimore (Chernow, Green).
Bernadette Cullen, M.B., M.R.C. Psych
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore (S. Spivak, Cullen, Meuchel, Johnston, Mojtabai); National Trafficking Shelter Alliance, Baltimore (A. Spivak); Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore (Cullen, Mojtabai); Johns Hopkins Health Systems, Baltimore (Chernow, Green).
Jennifer Meuchel, M.D.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore (S. Spivak, Cullen, Meuchel, Johnston, Mojtabai); National Trafficking Shelter Alliance, Baltimore (A. Spivak); Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore (Cullen, Mojtabai); Johns Hopkins Health Systems, Baltimore (Chernow, Green).
Deirdre Johnston, M.D.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore (S. Spivak, Cullen, Meuchel, Johnston, Mojtabai); National Trafficking Shelter Alliance, Baltimore (A. Spivak); Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore (Cullen, Mojtabai); Johns Hopkins Health Systems, Baltimore (Chernow, Green).
Rachel Chernow, L.C.P.C.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore (S. Spivak, Cullen, Meuchel, Johnston, Mojtabai); National Trafficking Shelter Alliance, Baltimore (A. Spivak); Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore (Cullen, Mojtabai); Johns Hopkins Health Systems, Baltimore (Chernow, Green).
Charee Green, L.C.P.C.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore (S. Spivak, Cullen, Meuchel, Johnston, Mojtabai); National Trafficking Shelter Alliance, Baltimore (A. Spivak); Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore (Cullen, Mojtabai); Johns Hopkins Health Systems, Baltimore (Chernow, Green).
Ramin Mojtabai, M.D., Ph.D.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore (S. Spivak, Cullen, Meuchel, Johnston, Mojtabai); National Trafficking Shelter Alliance, Baltimore (A. Spivak); Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore (Cullen, Mojtabai); Johns Hopkins Health Systems, Baltimore (Chernow, Green).

Notes

Send correspondence to Dr. Spivak ([email protected]).

Competing Interests

The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login
Purchase Options

Purchase this article to access the full text.

PPV Articles - Psychiatric Services

PPV Articles - Psychiatric Services

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share