The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in nationwide stay-at-home orders in an effort to slow the spread severely impacting the healthcare sector. Telepsychiatry provides a platform bridging the gap through advanced technologies connecting mental health providers and patients who need their services, overcoming previous barriers of great distances, lack of transportation, and even time constraints. The most obvious benefit is increased accessibility to mental healthcare, especially in underserved and remote areas where there is no easy access for in-person care. It is important to note that benefits are not limited to patients, but also allow clinicians greater flexibility in scheduling and reduced practice overhead costs, both of which aid with physician burnout and burden. Telepsychiatry during COVID-19 provides its own unique advantages over in-person visits. The risk of exposure to healthcare workers and patients receiving care is reduced, allowing immunocompromised patients to receive much-needed psychiatric care. Without the need to meet in person, self-isolating psychiatrists can still provide care, decreasing strain on their co-workers. Although telepsychiatry is relatively new, it has already exhibited considerable success in its effectiveness at treating psychiatric conditions and widespread corollary benefits. Telepsychiatric consults may be carried out synchronously and asynchronously, each having benefits and setbacks. Different mobile application interventions have been explored, which are available for the purpose of both monitoring/assessing patients and/or providing treatment. The scope of conditions these applications address is broad, from anxiety disorders to schizophrenia to depression. As promising and beneficial telepsychiatry may seem, it is necessary to recognize that building the program can be challenging. It involves adapting to new methods in medicine. We highlighted barriers to general telepsychiatry, the most prominent being technological literacy of both physician and patient, and possible negative effects of eliminating the in-person patient-doctor interaction.

Background: Bright light therapy (BLT) has been increasingly used as an experimental treatment in non-seasonal unipolar depression. While clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of BLT in ameliorating depression for outpatients, studies examining BLT in the psychiatric inpatient setting are currently lacking. Aim: The purpose of this study is to explore whether BLT as adjunctive treatment for depressive symptoms on an acute psychiatric floor is feasible and explore associated changes in depressive symptoms. Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study was conducted at State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate 4B acute inpatient psychiatric unit. BLT was administered to participating patients as adjunctive therapy to their psychopharmacological and psychotherapy treatments on a daily basis throughout their hospitalization. Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), and Outcome Questionnaire-45.2 (OQ-45.2) were administered before commencing BLT and after their last BLT session. Changes to the aforementioned measures before and after BLT treatment, the dose response of measure changes based on number of sessions, and the hospital length of stay along with the secondary factors such as age, gender, other psychiatric comorbidities, social factors, and psychiatric medications were analyzed. Results: BLT is feasible on acute psychiatric inpatient floor with adherence of 94% and has very few side effects. The repeated measures of depression and functioning demonstrated significant decrease in depression and improvement in functioning. Although not statistically significant, clinical meaningful dose-response relationship was found between a number of BLT sessions and improvement in depressive symptoms with five BLT sessions being an optimal amount for depression amelioration. Conclusion: BLT combined with the ongoing psychopharmacological treatment was well tolerated and easy to administer. It offers a simple, safe, and cost-effective approach to augmenting depressive treatment on an acute psychiatric floor.

Background: There is limited literature available showing the mental health burden among adolescents following cyberbullying. Objective: The aim was to evaluate the association between low mood and suicidality among cyberbullied adolescents. Method: A cross-sectional analysis of the data was performed among adolescents from the National Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. Responses from adolescents related to cyberbullying and suicidality were evaluated. Chi-square and mix-effect multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the association of cyberbullying with sadness/hopelessness and suicide consideration, plan, and attempts. Results: Of a total of 8274 adolescents, 14.8% of adolescents faced cyberbullying past year. There was a higher prevalence of cyberbullying in youths aged 15, 16, and 17 years (25%, 26%, 23%, respectively), which included more females than males (68% vs. 32%; p < 0.0001). Caucasians (53%) had the highest number of responses to being cyberbullied compared to Hispanics (24%) or African Americans (11%; p < 0.0001). There was an increased prevalence of cyberbullied youths, feelings of sadness/hopelessness (59.6% vs. 25.8%), higher numbers considering suicide (40.4% vs. 13.2%), suicide plan (33.2% vs. 10.8%), and multiple suicidal attempts in comparison to non-cyberbullied (p < 0.0001). On regression analysis, cyberbullied adolescents had a 155% higher chance of feeling sad and hopeless [aOR = 2.55; 95%CI = 2.39–2.72] and considered suicide [aOR = 1.52 (1.39–1.66)] and suicide plan [aOR = 1.24 (1.13–1.36)]. Conclusion: In our Study, cyberbullying was associated with negative mental health outcomes. Further research is warranted to examine the impact of cyberbullying among adolescents and guiding the policies to mitigate the consequences.