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.

How can imported monkeypox break the borders? A rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Monkeypox was designated as an emerging illness in 2018 by the World Health Organization Research and Development Blueprint, necessitating expedited research, development, and public health action. In this review, we aim to shed the light on the imported cases of monkeypox in attempt to prevent the further spread of the disease. Methodology An electronic search in the relevant database (Web of Science, PubMed Medline, PubMed Central, Google scholar, and Embase) was conducted to identify eligible articles. In addition to searching the grey literature, manual searching was carried out using the reference chain approach. RESULTS: A total of 1886 articles were retrieved using the search strategy with 21 studies included in the systematic review. A total of 113 cases of imported monkeypox were confirmed worldwide. Nineteen patients mentioned a travel history from Nigeria, thirty-eight infected cases had travel destinations from Europe, fifty-four cases traveled from European countries such as; Spain, France, and the Netherlands, one case from Portugal, and another one from the United Kingdom (UK). All reported clades of the virus were West African clade. Nine studies showed the source of infection was sexual contact, especially with male partners. Six studies mentioned the cause of infection was contact with an individual with monkeypox symptoms. Two studies considered cases due to acquired nosocomial infection. Ingestion of barbecued bushmeat was the source of infection in three studies and rodent carcasses were the source of infection in the other two studies. CONCLUSION: The development of functioning surveillance systems and point-of-entry screening is essential for worldwide health security. This necessitates ongoing training of front-line health professionals to ensure that imported monkeypox is properly diagnosed and managed. In addition, implementing effective health communication about monkeypox prevention and control is mandatory to help individuals to make informed decisions to protect their own and their communities' health.