Search

Background: There is an increasing demand for the provision of speech language pathology (SLP) services via telehealth. Therefore, we systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials comparing telehealth to face-to-face provision of SLP services., Methods: We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane, clinical trial registries, and conducted a citation analysis to identify trials. We included randomized trials comparing similar care delivered live via telehealth (phone or video), to face-to-face. Primary outcomes included: % syllables stuttered (%SS) (for individuals who stutter); change in sound pressure levels monologue (for individuals with Parkinson's disease); and key function scores (for other areas). Where data were sufficient, mean differences were calculated., Results: Nine randomized controlled trials were included; eight evaluated video and one evaluated phone telehealth. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear, excepting blinding. There were no significant differences at any time-point up to 18 months for %SS (mean difference, MD 0.1, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.6, p  = 0.70). For people with Parkinson's disease, there was no difference between groups in change in sound pressure levels (monologue) (MD 0.6, 95% CI -1.2 to 2.5, p  = 0.49). Four trials investigated interventions for speech sound disorder, voice disorder and post-stroke dysphagia and aphasia; they found no differences between telehealth service delivery and face-to-face delivery., Conclusions: Evidence suggests that the telehealth provision of SLP services may be a viable alternative to their provision face-to-face, particularly to people who stutter and people with Parkinson's disease. The key limitation is the small number of randomized controlled trials, as well as evidence on the quality of life, well-being and satisfaction and economic outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Introduction: Worldwide, it is estimated that 264 million people meet the diagnostic criteria for anxiety conditions. Effective treatment regimens consist of cognitive and behavioural therapies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, treatment delivery relied heavily on telemedicine technologies which enabled remote consultation with patients via phone or video platforms. We aim to identify, appraise and synthesise randomised controlled trials comparing telehealth to face-to-face delivery of care to individuals of any age or gender, diagnosed with anxiety disorders, and disorders with anxiety features., Methods: To conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched three electronic databases, clinical trial registries and citing-cited references of included studies., Results: A total of five small randomised controlled trials were includable; telehealth was conducted by video in three studies, and by telephone in two. The risk of bias for the 5 studies was low to moderate for most domains. Outcomes related to anxiety, depression symptom severity, obsessive-compulsive disorder, function, working alliance, and satisfaction were comparable between the two modes of delivery at each follow-up time point (immediately post-intervention, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months), with no significant differences reported ( p  > 0.05). None of the trials reported on the costs of telehealth compared to face-to-face care., Discussion: For effectively treating anxiety and related conditions, interventions delivered by telehealth appear to be as effective as the same therapy delivered in-person. However, further high-quality trials are warranted to determine the effectiveness, acceptability, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions for the management of a wider range of anxiety disorders and treatments.

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of the delivery of care to patients with insomnia via telehealth to its delivery face-to-face., Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to 11 January 2023, and conducted a citation analysis on 13 June 2023. No language restrictions were imposed. We included randomised controlled trials. Where feasible, mean differences were calculated; we used a random effects model., Results: Four trials (239 patients) were included. There were no significant differences between telehealth and face-to-face for insomnia severity scores shortly post-intervention (MD 1.13, 95% CI -0.29-2.55) or at 3 months (mean difference (MD) 1.79, 95% CI -0.01-3.59). There were no differences in Short Form-36 physical and mental scores, Work and Social Adjustment scores, and sleep quality components. Depression scores did not differ post-intervention or at 3 months (MD 0.42, 95% CI -2.42-3.26). Functioning likewise did not differ post-intervention or at 3 months (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% CI -0.37-0.67, P  = 0.58). Treatment satisfaction did not differ (one trial) or favoured the face-to-face group (one trial)., Conclusions: Telehealth may be a viable alternative to the face-to-face provision of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia to patients with insomnia. However, the volume of the existing evidence is limited, therefore additional trials are needed, evaluating cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia and other therapies for individuals for whom cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia is not effective, and conducted with a wider range of populations, providers and settings., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.