The Impact of COVID-19 on Provider Perceptions of Telemental Health
Open accessAbstract
The present study was designed to assess mental health provider attitudes and perceptions of telemental health (TMH) prior to and during the COVID-19 Pandemic, as well as the nature of their TMH utilization. The study aimed to gather information about positive and negative attitudes towards TMH, perceptions and correlates based on the modality of care, and beliefs about the overall effectiveness of TMH as compared to face-to-face care. The current study is part of a larger mixed methods project utilizing a repeated cross-sectional design. An online survey was administered to a sample of 1448 mental health providers and included demographic and professional information, experiences with and perceptions of TMH prior to and during the COVID-19 Pandemic, as well as a brief measure of pandemic-related stress. The COVID-19 Pandemic resulted in an increased use of TMH in the study sample. During COVID-19, providers reported increased agreement with TMH being necessary, important, and effective for care delivery. Providers who primarily used video, compared with telephone, reported that TMH was more useful, satisfying, and effective. While negative attitude towards TMH was predicted only by prior attitudes and belief in TMH effectiveness, positive attitude towards TMH was also predicted by female sex and current level of pandemic related stress. TMH use during the pandemic was predicted by primary use of video platform and previous TMH use. The 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic resulted in increased use of TMH and significantly increased positive perceptions about TMH among mental health providers.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some evidence suggests that when clinicians had to use telehealth, they experienced negative feelings including anxiety.
“When faced with the necessity to use telehealth, some evidence suggests clinicians experienced negative feelings including anxiety (Doorn et al., 2021; Doran & Lawson, 2021).”
From Overcoming Clinician Technophobia: What We Learned from Our Mass Exposure to Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic (2022) · cites this paper as Doran & Lawson, 2021
The Results (Technology and Preparedness; page unavailable) report that 62.5% of providers found the transition to telemental health at least somewhat stressful, citing the rapid transition, unfamiliar technology, and worry about provider–client rapport. The Discussion (page unavailable) also reports negative attitudes among a sizeable minority. These passages support negative feelings during the transition, but do not specifically report anxiety caused by having to use telehealth. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAnother large survey found that about 28% of mental health clinicians had negative feelings about telehealth before the pandemic, and those feelings dropped significantly after they moved to telehealth.
“Another large survey found about 28% of mental health clinicians had negative feelings about telehealth prior to the pandemic and that these feelings decreased significantly after migrating to telehealth (Doran & Lawson, 2021).”
From Overcoming Clinician Technophobia: What We Learned from Our Mass Exposure to Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic (2022) · cites this paper as Doran & Lawson, 2021
Direct experience with telehealth reduced negative reactions to telehealth.
“Direct experience with telehealth resulted in reduced negative reactions to telehealth (Doorn et al., 2021; Doran & Lawson, 2021).”
From Overcoming Clinician Technophobia: What We Learned from Our Mass Exposure to Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic (2022) · cites this paper as Doran & Lawson, 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 48 · Cited by 26
- Authors
- Doran, J. M., & Lawson, J. L.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Doran, Jennifer M.
- Venue
- Psychiatric Quarterly
- Published
- 2021-03-20
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1241-1258
- ISSN
- 0033-2720 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6709
- PMC
- PMC7980737
- OpenAlex
- W3139102052
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7
- FWCI
- 3.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychiatric Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
- Health Sciences › Dentistry › General Dentistry › Dental Research and COVID-19
- Keywords
- telemental health, COVID-19 pandemic, mental health professionals, provider attitudes, telehealth utilization, video telehealth, pandemic stress
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attitude of Health Personnel, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Stress, Psychological, Telemedicine, Videoconferencing, Young Adult, Pandemics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
