TY - JOUR T1 - Remote care for mental health: qualitative study with service users, carers and staff during the COVID-19 pandemic JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.01.18.21250032 SP - 2021.01.18.21250032 AU - Elisa Liberati AU - Natalie Richards AU - Jennie Parker AU - Janet Willars AU - David Scott AU - Nicola Boydell AU - Vanessa Pinfold AU - Graham Martin AU - Mary Dixon-Woods AU - Peter B Jones Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/20/2021.01.18.21250032.abstract N2 - Objectives To explore the experiences of service users, carers and staff seeking or providing secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design Qualitative interview study, co-designed with mental health service users and carers.Methods We conducted semi-structured, telephone or online interviews with a purposively constructed sample; a peer researcher with lived experience conducted and analysed interviews with service users. Analysis was based on the constant comparison method.Setting NHS secondary mental health services in England between June and August 2020.Participants Of 65 participants, 20 had either accessed or needed to access English secondary mental healthcare during the pandemic; 10 were carers of people with mental health difficulties; 35 were members of staff working in NHS secondary mental health services during the pandemic.Results Experiences of remote care were mixed. Some service users valued the convenience of remote methods in the context of maintaining contact with familiar clinicians. Most participants commented that a lack of non-verbal cues and the loss of a therapeutic ‘safe space’ challenged therapeutic relationship building, assessments, and identification of deteriorating mental wellbeing. Some carers felt excluded from remote meetings and concerned that assessments were incomplete without their input. Like service users, remote methods posed challenges for clinicians who reported uncertainty about technical options and a lack of training. All groups expressed concern about intersectionality exacerbating inequalities and the exclusion of some service user groups if alternatives to remote care are lost.Conclusions Whilst remote mental healthcare is likely to become increasingly widespread in secondary mental health services, our findings highlight the continued importance of a tailored, personal approach to decisions about remote mental healthcare. Further research should focus on which types of consultations best suit face-to-face interaction, and for whom and why, and which can be provided remotely and by which medium.Strengths and limitations of this studyStrengths include its qualitative approach in speaking to a large sample of participants with varied mental health difficulties, carers, and a diverse range of mental healthcare staff.Its novelty lies in a deep exploration of the views and experiences of remote mental healthcare during a pandemic.The methods are strengthened by the involvement of experts-by-experience and the use of peer research methods.We did not adopt a narrative method; the interviews were one-off conversations so we could not explore change as the pandemic progressed and people may have become accustomed to remote care.The study used remote methods to comply with UK lockdown regulations; this will have excluded some groups without the ability to engage remotely.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis project was funded by THIS Institutes grant from the Health Foundation. The Health Foundation is an independent charity committed to bringing about better health and health care for people in the UK. All contracted parties contributed to the study under agreements through the same funding. PBJ is supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East of England and by RP-PG-0161-20003. Mary Dixon-Woods is an NIHR Senior Investigator (NF-SI-0617-10026). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the University of Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee on 15 June 2020.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesRequests for anonymised data should be made to the authors. ER -