PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Norha Vera San Juan AU - Prisha Shah AU - Merle Schlief AU - Rebecca Appleton AU - Patrick Nyikavaranda AU - Mary Birken AU - Una Foye AU - Natasha Lyons AU - Luke Sheridan Rains AU - Zainab Dedat AU - Brynmor Lloyd-Evans AU - Justin J Needle AU - Alan Simpson AU - Nicola Morant AU - Sonia Johnson TI - Service user experiences and views regarding telemental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a co-produced framework analysis AID - 10.1101/2021.02.18.21251978 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.02.18.21251978 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/19/2021.02.18.21251978.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/19/2021.02.18.21251978.full AB - Background The prominence of telemental health, including providing care by video call and telephone, has greatly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there are clear variations in uptake and acceptability, and concerns that digital exclusion may exacerbate previous inequalities in accessing good quality care. Greater understanding is needed of how service users experience telemental health, and what determines whether they engage and find it acceptable.Methods We conducted a collaborative framework analysis of data from semi-structured interviews with a sample of people already experiencing mental health problems prior to the pandemic. Data relevant to participants’ experiences and views regarding telemental health during the pandemic was identified and extracted. Data collection and analysis used a participatory, coproduction approach where lived experience researchers, clinical and academic researchers contributed to all stages of data collection, analysis and interpretation of findings.Findings Participants’ experiences and preferences regarding telemental health care were dynamic and varied across time, settings, and individuals. Participants’ preferences were shaped by the reason for contacting providers, their relationship with the care provider, and both parties’ access or acceptability to use remote technology. While face-to-face care tended to be the preferred option, participants identified benefits of remote care including making care more accessible for some populations and improved efficiency for functional appointments such as prescription reviews. Participants highlighted important new challenges around safety and privacy in online settings, and gave examples of good remote care strategies, including scheduling regular phone calls and developing guidelines about how to access remote care tools.Discussion Participants in our study and previous literature have highlighted advantages of telemental health care, as well as significant limitations which hinder mental health support and exacerbate inequalities in access to services. Some of these limitations are seen as potentially removable, for example through staff training or better digital access for staff or service users. Others indicate a need to maintain traditional face-to-face contact at least for some appointments. There is a clear need for care to be flexible and individualised to service user circumstances and preferences. Further research is needed on ways of minimising digital exclusion and to support staff in making effective and collaborative use of relevant technologies.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis paper presents independent research commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme, conducted by the NIHR Policy Research Unit (PRU) in Mental Health. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and social care, or its arm’s length bodies or other government departments.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 was obtained from the UCL Research Ethics Committee on 19/12/2019 (ref: 15249/001) and an amended topic guide was approved on 14/08/2020.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.YesAll relevant data is included in the manuscript or supplementary material.