Technologically Punctual? A Preliminary Evaluation of Differences between Face-to-Face and Video Check-In Times for Initial Mental Health Services.

Video-based telehealth provides mental health services to underserved populations. As decision makers reevaluate service offerings following COVID-19, it remains prudent to evaluate the utility of ongoing telehealth options among rural healthcare facilities, the primary healthcare source for many rural individuals. As research continues to compare video and face-to-face services, one understudied component is attendance. Although video-based telehealth has demonstrated improved show-rates for mental health services when compared to face-to-face methods, limited work has clarified whether video improves patient punctuality for these appointments, a documented challenge prevalent for patients with mental health-related concerns. A retrospective electronic record review of psychiatry, psychology, and social work initial patient visits between 2018-2022 was conducted (N = 14,088). Face-to-face visits demonstrated a mean check-in time of -10.78 min (SD = 26.77), while video visits demonstrated a mean check-in time of -6.44 (SD = 23.87). Binary logistic regressions suggested that increased video usage was associated with a decreased likelihood of late check-in (B = -0.10, S. E. = 0.05, Exp(B) = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.83 - 1.00). Exploratory binary logistic regressions evaluated age, sex, race, ethnicity, specialty, insurance type, and diagnostic classification influence on video initial visits. Increased video usage was associated with a statistically decreased likelihood of late check-in; however, clinically, both face-to-face and video visits exhibited mean check-in times prior to the initial visit's scheduled time. As such, mental health organizations are encouraged to continue offering both face-to-face and video as options to foster evidence-based practices to the broadest population.

A Primer for Understanding and Utilizing Telesupervision with Healthcare Trainees.

Clinical supervision remains a core component of healthcare education. While traditionally conducted face-to-face, the use of telesupervision, or supervision from a distance via technology, has exhibited rapid expansion across healthcare specialties. Although the literature has showcased preliminary empirical support for various methods of implementing telesupervision, limited consolidated works detail the real-world utility and considerations for healthcare supervisors. To address this gap, the current brief discussion aims to provide a primer for the use of telesupervision through a detailing of considerations relevant to telesupervisor practices, including methods of providing telesupervision, the known benefits associated with telesupervision, differences and challenges of telesupervision as compared to face-to-face methods, qualities of effective telesupervisors, and training considerations to foster the effective qualities.

Fostering telecompetence: A descriptive evaluation of clinical psychology predoctoral internship and postdoctoral fellowship implementation of telehealth education.

PURPOSE: Telehealth education within clinical psychology predoctoral internships and postdoctoral fellowships has become a frequent recommendation designed to prepare future providers with evidence-informed telehealth skills that can be applied to rural populations. Unfortunately, the availability of telehealth training among internships and fellowships, as well as areas for growth, remains unclear. Thus, the current study evaluated graduate clinical psychology internship and fellowship integration of telehealth training components before and after the onset of COVID-19. METHODS: Individuals representing 74 internships and 29 fellowships completed author-created REDCap-hosted demographic and telehealth training surveys. FINDINGS: Before COVID-19, 2 internships and 4 fellowships reported implementing telehealth education, with a majority of materials for both types of programs being optional educational targets and generally encompassing 0-15 hours of student education. After the onset of COVID-19, 72 internships and 27 fellowships indicated implementing telehealth education, with a majority indicating materials as mandatory and encompassing between 0 and 50+ hours. Despite increases, 73.6% of internship programs and 62.1% of fellowship programs noted a desire for their students to receive additional telehealth education in the future. Integrated educational foci are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrated positive trends in the development of telehealth education among internships and fellowships. Nevertheless, some programs can likely benefit from additional integration of telehealth components, as well as more formal programming built around field-supported competencies and models. While work is required to further clarify field offerings, the current study provided a preliminary evaluation of internship and fellowship telehealth educational offerings.

When a Straight Line Is Not the Most Direct Method: an Evaluation of Straight Line Versus True Distance Metrics for Patients in Rural Settings.

Telehealth has been hypothesized as a solution for rural barriers precluding access to healthcare, of which distance remains one of the most significant. Providers, institutions, and policymakers may use distance as a metric to determine whether to keep, or to end, telehealth services. Although commonly used, straight line distance (SLD) may not reflect the true burden of distance (TD) for rural patients. A retrospective record review was conducted to determine the difference between SLD and TD for patients seeking behavioral health care at a large outpatient center. The discrepancy between SLD and TD ranged from 0.5 to 83.4 miles of additional actual travel distance (mean = - 17.6). The mean percentage that SLD underestimated TD was 31.9%. Findings highlight that when considering distance as a determining factor for telehealth services, SLD is an inaccurate representation of the travel burden on this sample of rural patients, suggesting the utility of TD as an alternative.

Educating for the Future: a Preliminary Investigation of Doctoral-Level Clinical Psychology Training Program's Implementation of Telehealth Education.

Literature has reinforced the importance of telehealth-focused education to foster provider competence and optimal patient care. As clinical psychology evolves to meet field needs, many have suggested graduate school as an optimal time to offer comprehensive telehealth education. Despite the rapid expansion of telehealth post-COVID-19, the extent of telehealth-specific doctoral-level programming, as well as the foci of available trainings, has remained unclear. To address this gap and inform future work, the current study evaluated doctoral-level clinical psychology training programs throughout the USA. Fourteen doctoral-level training programs completed author-created REDCap-hosted demographic and telehealth training surveys. Pre-COVID-19, three of fourteen programs reported implementing some form of telehealth-focused education, with a majority of the information being viewed as optional targets for instructors. Contrastingly, thirteen programs indicated implementing telehealth-focused education post-COVID-19, with a majority of the information being indicated as mandatory educational targets. Despite increases in educational activities, a large number of programs endorsed a desire for additional telehealth-focused education for students as they transition into future roles. Educational foci, methods of training, and instructor preparation are discussed. While participation was limited, the current study demonstrated positive trends in the development of telehealth-focused education. Nevertheless, there remains an ongoing need for both specialized coursework and a wider range of educational topics. Ultimately, the current study is believed to have provided a preliminary evaluation of the types and foci of telehealth-focused education among doctoral-level clinical psychology training programs.

Reaffirming normal: the high risk of pathologizing healthy adults when interpreting the MMPI-2-RF.

Monte Carlo simulations were utilized to determine the proportion of the normal population expected to have scale elevations on the MMPI-2-RF when multiple scores are interpreted. Results showed that when all 40 MMPI-2-RF scales are simultaneously considered, approximately 70% of normal adults are likely to have at least one scale elevation at or above 65 T, and as many as 20% will have five or more elevated scales. When the Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales are under consideration, 34% of normal adults have at least one elevated score. Interpretation of the Specific Problem Scales and Personality Psychopathology Five Scales--Revised also yielded higher than expected rates of significant scores, with as many as one in four normal adults possibly being miscategorized as having features of a personality disorder by the latter scales. These findings are consistent with the growing literature on rates of apparently abnormal scores in the normal population due to multiple score interpretation. Findings are discussed in relation to clinical assessment, as well as in response to recent work suggesting that the MMPI-2-RF's multiscale composition does not contribute to high rates of elevated scores.

Attitudes toward psychological telehealth: current and future clinical psychologists' opinions of internet-based interventions.

OBJECTIVES: The current study explored differences in acceptance of telehealth interventions amongst currently licensed and future clinicians with a focus on web camera-based intervention. The influence of theoretical orientation was also assessed. METHOD: An online survey assessed 717 participants comprising 409 licensed psychologists (40.8% female, mean age = 56.57, standard deviation [SD] = 11.01) and 308 doctoral-level students (78.9% female, mean age = 27.66, SD = 5.9) across domains of endorsement and rejection. RESULTS: Binary logistic regression indicated no significant difference between currently licensed and future psychologists in their endorsement of telehealth modalities. Cognitive-behavioral, cognitive, behavioral, and systems psychologists were significantly more accepting of telehealth interventions than were dynamic/analytic or existential therapists. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing exposure to telehealth through education as well as continued research on efficacy for specific diagnoses may help psychologists to more effectively determine whether telehealth is the "best fit" for both clinician and client.

Controversy clarified: an updated review of clinical psychology and tele-health.

One of the most controversial topics in the field of clinical psychology, online tele-health, or the integration of computers and the internet with therapeutic techniques, remains at the forefront of many debates. Despite potential interest, there are numerous factors that a psychologist must consider before integrating an online tele-health intervention into their own practice. This article outlines literature pertinent to the debate. The article begins with a brief history of the use of non-face-to-face interventions as well as the earliest recorded use of "tele-health" before discussing the modern benefits and risks associated with usage. Considerations for the psychologist as well as the client are detailed; incorporating ethical implications. The authors conclude that the utilization of tele-health interventions is an exponentially expanding field that should continue to be explored. Despite many well-conceived studies, a psychologist should educate themselves in all aspects of the new modes of intervention (e.g., ethical, legal, evidence-based treatments) before attempting to implement them into everyday practice. The article ends with a discussion on the acceptance among psychologists, as well as the outlook for the future.

That's the man who did it, or was it a woman? Actor similarity and binding errors in event memory.

Mistakes in eyewitness identification frequently occur when incorrect associations are made between a familiar person and the actions of another person. The present research demonstrates that actors do not need to be similar in appearance for such conjunction errors to occur. The actors can, in fact, be very different in appearance, even of different sexes. Participants attempted to remember a series of brief everyday events, each involving an actor performing an action. Increases in actor similarity led to increases in conjunction errors in which participants incorrectly associated a familiar actor with a familiar action that was actually performed by someone else, but conjunction errors frequently occurred even when the familiar actor was of a different sex than the original actor, arguing against the hypothesis that these conjunction errors are due solely to mistaken identity.