Background: In response to COVID-19, there has been increasing momentum in telehealth development and delivery. To assess the anticipated exponential growth in telehealth, it is important to accurately capture how telehealth has been used in specific mental health fields prior to the pandemic. Objective: This systematic review aimed to highlight how telehealth has been used with clinical samples in the neurodevelopmental field, including patients with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), their families, and health care professionals. To identify which technologies show the greatest potential for implementation into health services, we evaluated technologies for effectiveness, economic impact, and readiness for clinical adoption. Methods: A systematic search of literature was undertaken in April 2018 and updated until December 2019, by using the Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, and PsycInfo databases. Extracted data included the type of technology, how the technology was used (ie, assessment, treatment, and monitoring), participant characteristics, reported outcomes and authors’ views on clinical effectiveness, user impact (ie, feasibility and acceptability), economic impact, and readiness for clinic adoption. A quality review of the research was performed in accordance with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. Results: A total of 42 studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies included participants and family members with autism spectrum disorders (21/42, 50%), attention deficit hyperactivity disorders (8/42, 19%), attention deficit hyperactivity or autism spectrum disorders (3/42, 7%), communication disorders (7/42, 17%), and tic disorders (2/42, 5%). The focus of most studies (33/42, 79%) was on treatment, rather than assessment (4/42, 10%) or monitoring (5/42, 12%). Telehealth services demonstrated promise for being clinically effective, predominantly in relation to diagnosing and monitoring NDDs. In terms of NDD treatment, telehealth services were usually equivalent to control groups. There was some evidence of positive user and economic impacts, including increased service delivery efficiency (eg, increased treatment availability and decreased waiting times). However, these factors were not widely recorded across the studies. Telehealth was demonstrated to be cost-effective in the few studies that considered cost-effectiveness. Study quality varied, as many studies had small sample sizes and inadequate control groups. Of the 42 studies, only 11 (26%) were randomized controlled trials, 12 (29%) were case studies or case series, 6 (14%) were qualitative studies, and 5 (12%) were noncomparative trials. Conclusions: Telehealth has the potential to increase treatment availability, decrease diagnosis waiting times, and aid in NDD monitoring. Further research with more robust and adequately powered study designs that consider cost-effectiveness and increased efficiency is needed. This systematic review highlights the extent of telehealth technology use prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the movement for investing in remote access to treatments. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42018091156; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018091156

Technology-based interventions provide an attractive option for improving service provision for neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD), for example, widening access to interventions, objective assessment, and monitoring; however, it is unclear whether there is sufficient evidence to support their use in clinical settings. This review provides an evidence map describing how technology is implemented in the assessment/diagnosis and monitoring/ treatment of NDD (Prospero CRD42018091156). Using predefined search terms in six databases, 7982 articles were identified, 808 full-texts were screened, resulting in 47 included papers. These studies were appraised and synthesised according to the following outcomes of interest: effectiveness (clinical effectiveness/ service delivery efficiencies), economic impact, and user impact (acceptability/ feasibility). The findings describe how technology is currently being utilised clinically, highlights gaps in knowledge, and discusses future research needs. Technology has been used to facilitate assessment and treatment across multiple NDD, especially Autism Spectrum (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity (ADHD) disorders. Technologies include mobile apps/tablets, robots, gaming, computerised tests, videos, and virtual reality. The outcomes presented largely focus on the clinical effectiveness of the technology, with approximately half the papers demonstrating some degree of effectiveness, however, the methodological quality of many studies is limited. Further research should focus on randomised controlled trial designs with longer follow-up periods, incorporating an economic evaluation, as well as qualitative studies including process evaluations and user impact.

Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.

Question: Children and young people experience delays in assessment and/or treatment within mental health services. The objective of this systematic review, funded by the Emerging Minds Network, was to explore the current evidence base for mental health waiting list interventions to support children and young people. Study selection and analysis: A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane databases from 2000 to 2023 (last searched October 2023). Included studies described interventions to support children and young people and/or their family while on a waiting list for child and adolescent mental health services. Titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers, data were extracted by one reviewer, confirmed by a second and a narrative synthesis was provided. Findings: Eighteen studies including 1253 children and young people were identified. Studies described waiting list interventions for autism spectrum disorders, eating disorders, generic conditions, transgender health, anxiety/depression, self-harm and suicide and behavioural issues. Many interventions were multicomponent; 94% involved psychoeducation, other components included parental support, bibliotherapy and coaching. Duration of the interventions ranged from a single session to over a year; 66% involved face-to-face contact. All studies demonstrated benefits in terms of improved clinical outcomes and/or feasibility/acceptability. Evidence for service outcomes/efficiency was largely unexplored. Limitations of the underpinning research, such as sample size and low-quality papers, limit the findings. Conclusions: There is limited research exploring waiting list interventions, however, the findings from small-scale studies are promising. Further research using robust study designs and real-world implementation studies are warranted.

Background: To contextualize the benefits of an intervention, it is important that adverse events (AEs) are reported. This is potentially difficult in trials of digital mental health interventions, where delivery may be remote and the mechanisms of actions less understood. Objective: We aimed to explore the reporting of AEs in randomized controlled trials of digital mental health interventions. Methods: The International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number database was searched for trials registered before May 2022. Using advanced search filters, we identified 2546 trials in the category of mental and behavioral disorders. These trials were independently reviewed by 2 researchers against the eligibility criteria. Trials were included where digital mental health interventions for participants with a mental health disorder were evaluated through a completed randomized controlled trial (protocol and primary results publication published). Published protocols and primary results publications were then retrieved. Data were extracted independently by 3 researchers, with discussion to reach consensus when required. Results: Twenty-three trials met the eligibility criteria, of which 16 (69%) included a statement on AEs within a publication, but only 6 (26%) reported AEs within their primary results publication. Seriousness was referred to by 6 trials, relatedness by 4, and expectedness by 2. More interventions delivered with human support (9/11, 82%) than those with only remote or no support (6/12, 50%) included a statement on AEs, but they did not report more AEs. Several reasons for participant dropout were identified by trials that did not report AEs, of which some were identifiable or related to AEs, including serious AEs. Conclusions: There is significant variation in the reporting of AEs in trials of digital mental health interventions. This variation may reflect limited reporting processes and difficulty recognizing AEs related to digital mental health interventions. There is a need to develop guidelines specifically for these trials to improve future reporting.

The diagnosis and monitoring of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) typically relies on subjective reports and observations. Objective continuous performance tests (CPTs) have been incorporated into some services to support clinical decision making. However, the feasibility and acceptability of adding such a test into routine practice is unknown. The study aimed to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of adding an objective computerised test to the routine assessment and monitoring of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians (n = 10) and families (parents/young people, n = 20) who participated in a randomised controlled trial. Additionally, the same clinicians (n = 10) and families (n = 76) completed a survey assessing their experience of the QbTest. The study took place in child and adolescent mental health and community paediatric clinics across the UK. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed. Interviewed clinicians and families valued the QbTest for providing an objective, valid assessment of symptoms. The QbTest was noted to facilitate communication between clinicians, families and schools. However, whereas clinicians were more unanimous on the usefulness of the QbTest, survey findings showed that, although the majority of families found the test useful, less than half felt the QbTest helped them understand the clinician’s decision making around diagnosis and medication. The QbTest was seen as a potentially valuable tool to use early in the assessment process to streamline the care pathway. Although clinicians were conscious of the additional costs, these could be offset by reductions in time to diagnosis and the delivery of the test by a Healthcare Assistant. The findings indicate the QbTest is an acceptable and feasible tool to implement in routine clinical settings. Clinicians should be mindful to discuss the QbTest results with families to enable their understanding and engagement with the process. Further findings from definitive trials are required to understand the cost/benefit; however, the findings from this study support the feasibility and acceptability of integrating QbTest in the ADHD care pathway. The findings form the implementation component of the Assessing QbTest Utility in ADHD (AQUA) Trial which is registered with the ISRCTN registry ( ISRCTN11727351 , retrospectively registered 04 July 2016) and clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02209116 , registered 04 August 2014).