Search

BackgroundRemote interventions known as telemental health care increased in use due to the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing requirements were in place. Whilst there is some evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of telemental health prior to the pandemic, there is a need for further evaluation due to the increase in remote care.AimsTo systematically review the literature to explore whether remote mental health care interventions are cost-effective in terms of incremental cost per quality adjusted life year and in relation to condition specific outcomes compared to usual care or an alternative intervention.MethodA multilayer search strategy was conducted to build on the searches of a previous systematic review, as well as including grey literature and economic models. Six databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and EconLit) were searched for literature relating to the cost effectiveness of telemental health. Quality appraisal was conducted for all included studies, and findings were synthesised using narrative synthesis.Results7386 studies were identified of which 59 met our inclusion criteria and were included in the synthesis of findings. 45 studies were rated as very good or excellent quality. Of the 59 included studies, 40 indicated that the telemental health intervention was cost-effective, whilst a further 16 suggested the intervention had potential to be cost-effective, but there was some uncertainty in the findings. Three studies reported that the intervention was not cost-effective.ConclusionsThis evidence will be used to inform practice in the UK as we respond to and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

This paper provides one of the first inquiries into the interactional dynamics of an interpreter-mediated research encounter. All spoken interactions – that is, originals and real-time translations produced in a multilingual interview conducted with a Syrian refugee – were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim using conversation analysis notation, retranslated and collaboratively analysed from three major perspectives: common language, equivalence, and loss and gain in translation. A stimulated recall interview, field notes and audio-recorded work sessions documenting our interpretative practices complement the data. Fixing our analytical gaze on the minute details of language use across English–Arabic allowed for a novel inquiry into specific moments of meaning making, role performances and rapport building in qualitative interviewing. Our examples illustrate how an agreed-on sense of the source meaning is established not only during the interview itself, but also at the point of its multilingual representation and analysis.

Since the outbreak of Covid-19 health communicators around the globe have had to reach, urge, and persuade individuals and communities to adopt appropriate health protective behaviors. They have used a mix of communication channels, including outdoor media and public signage which are the focus of this paper. Drawing on a comparative linguistic landscape analysis, this paper critically examined the amount, content, and prominence of Covid-19 signage in Hackney, a London borough severely hit by the first wave of the pandemic. Having analyzed 1288 signs collected between May and July 2020, we found significant differences in Covid-19 signage between deprived and less deprived areas. These differences (e.g., in messaging about staying at home) have created inequalities in access to Covid-19 related health information and guidance. We also explored the changes in Covid-19 signage over time and the tailoring of risk and health messages to minority communities.