A scoping review of applications of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to telehealth service implementation initiatives.

BACKGROUND: The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), introduced in 2009, has the potential to provide a comprehensive understanding of the determinants of implementation-effectiveness of health service innovations. Although the CFIR has been increasingly used in recent years to examine factors influencing telehealth implementation, no comprehensive reviews currently exist on the scope of knowledge gained exclusively from applications of the CFIR to telehealth implementation initiatives. This review sought to address this gap. METHODS: PRISMA-ScR criteria were used to inform a scoping review of the literature. Five academic databases (PUBMED, PROQUEST, SCIDIRECT, CINAHL, and WoS) were searched for eligible sources of evidence from 01.01.2010 through 12.31.2021. The initial search yielded a total of 18,388 records, of which, 64 peer-reviewed articles met the inclusion criteria for the review. Included articles were reviewed in full to extract data, and data collected were synthesized to address the review questions. RESULTS: Most included articles were published during or after 2020 (64%), and a majority (77%) were qualitative or mixed-method studies seeking to understand barriers or facilitators to telehealth implementation using the CFIR. There were few comparative- or implementation-effectiveness studies containing outcome measures (5%). The database search however, revealed a growing number of protocols for implementation-effectiveness studies published since 2020. Most articles (91%) reported the CFIR Inner Setting domain (e.g., leadership engagement) to have a predominant influence over telehealth implementation success. By comparison, few articles (14%) reported the CFIR Outer Setting domain (e.g., telehealth policies) to have notable influence. While more (63%) telehealth initiatives were focused on specialty (vs primary) care, a vast majority (78%) were focused on clinical practice over medical education, healthcare administration, or population health. CONCLUSIONS: Organized provider groups have historically paid considerable attention to advocating for telehealth policy (Outer Setting) reform. However, results suggest that for effective telehealth implementation, provider groups need to refocus their efforts on educating individual providers on the complex inter-relationships between Inner Setting constructs and telehealth implementation-effectiveness. On a separate note, the growth in implementation-effectiveness study protocols since 2020, suggests that additional outcome measures may soon be available, to provide a more nuanced understanding of the determinants of effective telehealth implementation based on the CFIR domains and constructs.

A Narrative Review of Factors Historically Influencing Telehealth Use across Six Medical Specialties in the United States.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, studies in the US have identified wide variations in telehealth use across medical specialties. This is an intriguing problem, because the US has historically lacked a standardized set of telehealth coverage and reimbursement policies, which has posed a barrier to telehealth use across all specialties. Although all medical specialties in the US have been affected by these macro (policy-level) barriers, some specialties have been able to integrate telehealth use into mainstream practice, while others are just gaining momentum with telehealth during COVID-19. Although the temporary removal of policy (coverage) restrictions during the pandemic has accelerated telehealth use, uncertainties remain regarding future telehealth sustainability. Since macro (policy-level) factors by themselves do not serve to explain the variation in telehealth use across specialties, it would be important to examine meso (organizational-level) and micro (individual-level) factors historically influencing telehealth use across specialties, to understand underlying reasons for variation and identify implications for widespread sustainability. This paper draws upon the existing literature to develop a conceptual framework on macro-meso-micro factors influencing telehealth use within a medical specialty. The framework is then used to guide a narrative review of the telehealth literature across six medical specialties, including three specialties with lower telehealth use (allergy-immunology, family medicine, gastroenterology) and three with higher telehealth use (psychiatry, cardiology, radiology) in the US, in order to synthesize themes and gain insights into barriers and facilitators to telehealth use. In doing so, this review addresses a gap in the literature and provides a foundation for future research. Importantly, it helps to identify implications for ensuring widespread sustainability of telehealth use in the post-pandemic future.

Mental disorder prevalence among populations impacted by coronavirus pandemics: A multilevel meta-analytic study of COVID-19, MERS & SARS.

OBJECTIVE: Through a systematic review and meta-analysis of research on COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) pandemics, we investigated whether mental disorder prevalence: (a) was elevated among populations impacted by coronavirus pandemics (relative to unselected populations reported in the literature), and (b) varied by disorder (undifferentiated psychiatric morbidity, anxiety, depressive, posttraumatic stress disorders [PTSD]) and impacted population (community, infected/recovered, healthcare provider, quarantined). METHOD: From 68 publications (N = 87,586 participants), 808 estimates were included in a series of multilevel meta-analyses/regressions including random effects to account for estimates nested within studies. RESULTS: Median summary point prevalence estimates varied by disorder and population. Psychiatric morbidity (20-56%), PTSD (10-26%) and depression (9-27%) were most prevalent in most populations. The highest prevalence of each disorder was found among infected/recovered adults (18-56%), followed by healthcare providers (11-28%) and community adults (11-20%). Prevalence estimates were often notably higher than reported for unselected samples. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that overall prevalence estimates moderately varied by pandemic, study location, and mental disorder measure type. CONCLUSION: Coronavirus pandemics are associated with multiple mental disorders in several impacted populations. Needed are investigations of causal links between specific pandemic-related stressors, threats, and traumas and mental disorders.