Background: There is increasing interest in the use of telemedicine as a means of health care delivery especially in circumstances of pandemics. This is partly because technological advances have made the equipment less expensive and simpler to use and partly because increasing health care costs and patient expectations have increased the need to find alternative modes of health care delivery. Introduction: Telemedicine and telepsychiatry, in particular, are rapidly becoming important delivery approaches to providing clinical care and information to patients in cases wherein the medical resources and the patients are very hard to be brought together with respect to rules of behavior in case of epidemics. The reliance on technology to bridge the obstacles between the patients (consumers) and medical resources (providers) can create problems that impact service delivery and outcomes, but in cases such as this (COVID-19 pandemics), this is virtually the only tool for providing clinical care and information to patients. Materials and Methods: A client satisfaction survey was undertaken in a daily hospital (a part of University Clinic of Psychiatry in Skopje). The anonymous modified self-report questionnaire (short form patient satisfaction questionnaire [PSQ-18]) covering demographic, gender, and age variables was endorsed by 28 participants. The mean age of the subjects was 40.25-22 years, with a small majority of men (18 participants) versus women (11 participants). Results: Overall satisfaction with psychiatric care was high (80.22%). None of the demographic or other variables correlated significantly with satisfaction. Discussion: We had to reduce rate and time length of our face-to-face contacts with patients as a result of pandemics but they were able to reach their doctors virtually at all times. Conclusions: Many mental health professionals are using widely available, commercial software downloaded from the internet to provide care directly to a patient's home.

No abstract

Background: Substantial strides have been made around the world in reforming mental health systems by shifting away from institutional care towards community-based services. Despite an extensive evidence base on what constitutes effective care for people with severe mental ill-health, many people in Europe do not have access to optimal mental health care. In an effort to consolidate previous efforts to improve community mental health care and support the complex transition from hospital-based to community-based care delivery, the RECOVER-E (LaRge-scalE implementation of COmmunity based mental health care for people with seVere and Enduring mental ill health in EuRopE) project aims to implement and evaluate multidisciplinary community mental health teams in five countries in Central and Eastern Europe. This paper provides a brief overview of the RECOVER-E project and its methods. Methods: Five implementation sites were selected (

ObjectivesPsychotic disorders have large treatment gap in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in South-Eastern Europe, where up to 45% of affected people do not receive care for their condition. This study will assess the implementation of a generic psychosocial intervention called DIALOG+ in mental health care services and its effectiveness at improving patients’ clinical and social outcomes.MethodsThis is a protocol for a multi-country, pragmatic, hybrid effectiveness–implementation, cluster-randomised, clinical trial. The trial aims to recruit 80 clinicians and 400 patients across 5 South-Eastern European LMICs: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo*, Montenegro, Republic of North Macedonia and Serbia. Clusters are clinicians working with patients with psychosis, and each clinician will deliver the intervention to five patients. After patient baseline assessments, clinicians will be randomly assigned to either the DIALOG+ intervention or treatment as usual, with an allocation ratio of 1:1. The intervention will be delivered six times over 12 months during routine clinical meetings. TThe primary outcome measure is the quality of life at 12 months [Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA)]; the secondary outcomes include mental health symptoms [Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms (CAINS), Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI)], satisfaction with services [Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)] and economic costs at 12 months [based on Client Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI), EQ-5D-5L and Recovering Quality of Life (ReQOL-10)]. The study will assess the intervention fidelity and the experience of clinicians and patients’ about implementing DIALOG+ in real-life mental health care settings. In the health economic assessment, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is calculated with effectiveness measured by quality-adjusted life year. Data will also be collected on sustainability and reach to inform guidelines for potentially scaling up and implementing the intervention widely. Conclusion: The study is expected to generate new scientific knowledge on the treatment of people with psychosis in health care systems with limited resources. The learning from LMICs could potentially help other countries to expand the access to care and alleviate the suffering of patients with psychosis and their families.Trial registration: ISRCTN 11913964

No abstract