Acceptability of Tele-mental Health Services Among Users: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mental disorders are currently a global public health concern, particularly after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Mental health services gradually transitioned to teleservices, employing various methods like texting and videoconferencing. This meta-analysis aimed mainly to quantify the acceptability of tele-mental health services among both beneficiaries and providers. Secondary objectives included quantifying the usability of and satisfaction with these services. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the following databases PubMed Central, SAGE, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed Medline, and EBSCO according to Preferred Reporting Items of the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines until December 2022. RESULTS: Out of 3366 search results, 39 studies fully met the inclusion criteria. The pooled acceptability of tele-mental health services among beneficiaries was [71.0% with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 63.0 - 78.5%, I2 = 98%]. Using meta-regression, four key factors contributed to this heterogeneity (R2 = 99.75%), namely, year of publication, type of mental disorder, participant category, and the quality of included studies. While acceptability among providers was [66.0% (95%CI, 52.0 - 78.0%), I2 = 95%]. The pooled usability of tele-mental health services among participants was [66.0% (95%CI, 50.0 - 80.0%), I2 = 83%]. Subgroup analysis revealed statistically significant results (p = 0.003), indicating that usability was higher among beneficiaries compared to providers. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlighted a high acceptability of tele-mental health services. These findings suggest a promising outlook for the integration and adoption of tele-mental health services and emphasize the importance of considering user perspectives and addressing provider-specific challenges to enhance overall service delivery and effectiveness.

Efficacy and Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has threatened global health and prompted the need for mass vaccination. We aimed to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines to prevent mortality and reduce the risk of developing severe disease after the 1st and 2nd doses. From conception to 28 June 2021, we searched PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, WHO-ICTRP, and Google Scholar. We included both observational and randomized controlled trials. The pooled vaccine efficacy and effectiveness following vaccination, as well as their 95 percent confidence intervals (CI), were estimated using the random-effects model. In total, 22 of the 21,567 screened articles were eligible for quantitative analysis. Mortality 7 and 14 days after full vaccination decreased significantly among the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group (OR = 0.10, ([95% CI, 0.04-0.27], I2 = 54%) and (OR = 0.46, [95% CI, 0.35-0.61], I2 = 0%), respectively. The probability of having severe disease one or two weeks after 2nd dose decreased significantly (OR = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.19-0.46], I2 = 25%) and (OR = 0.08 [95% CI, 0.03-0.25], I2 = 74%), respectively. The incidence of infection any time after the 1st and 2nd doses diminished significantly (OR = 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07-0.4], I2 = 100%) and (OR = 0.179 [95% CI, 0.15-0.19], I2 = 98%), respectively. Also, incidence of infection one week after 2nd dose decreased significantly, (OR = 0.04, [95% CI (0.01-0.2], I2 = 100%). After meta-regression, the type of vaccine and country were the main predictors of outcome [non-mRNA type, ß = 2.99, p = 0.0001; country UK, ß = -0.75, p = 0.038; country USA, ß = 0.8, p = 0.02]. This study showed that most vaccines have comparable effectiveness, and it is purported that mass vaccination may help to end this pandemic.