Comparing efficacy of telehealth to in-person mental health care in intensive-treatment-seeking adults.

Abstract The heightened acuity in anxiety and depressive symptoms catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic presents an urgent need for effective, feasible alternatives to in-person mental health treatment. While tele-mental healthcare has been investigated for practicability and accessibility, its efficacy as a successful mode for delivering high-quality, high-intensity treatment remains unclear. This study compares the clinical outcomes of a matched sample of patients in a private, nation-wide behavioral health treatment system who received in-person, intensive psychological treatment prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (N = 1,192) to the outcomes of a distinctive group of patients who received telehealth treatment during the pandemic (N = 1,192). Outcomes are measured with respect to depressive symptoms (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report; QIDS-SR) and quality of life (Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire; Q-LES-Q). There were no significant differences in admission score on either assessment comparing in-person and telehealth groups. Patients in the partial hospitalization level of care stayed longer when treatment was remote. Results suggest telehealth as a viable care alternative with no significant differences between in-person and telehealth groups in depressive symptom reduction, and significant increases in self-reported quality of life across both groups. Future research is needed to replicate these findings in other healthcare organizations in other geographical locations and diverse patient populations.