Currently submitted to: JMIR Formative Research
Date Submitted: Mar 18, 2026
Open Peer Review Period: Mar 24, 2026 - May 19, 2026
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
From Crisis to Continuity: Clinicians’ and Clients’ Appraisals of Videoconferencing in Adult Mental Health Care
ABSTRACT
Background:
The COVID-19 lockdown accelerated the adoption of telepsychiatry, including synchronous videoconferencing in adult mental health care. It is still unclear whether videoconferencing works equally well for all user groups. This study examines clinicians’ and clients’ experiences with videoconferencing during the first Dutch lockdown (April 2020) and one year later (April 2021), focusing on the appraisal of online individual (OIT) and online group treatment (OGT) in outpatient adult mental health care, covering first-line (primary) and second-line (specialized) services.
Objective:
To examine the appraisal of OIT and OGT among clients and clinicians in 2020 and 2021, and to explore subgroup differences by gender, age and diagnosis/profession.
Methods:
Two independent cross-sectional surveys were conducted in 2020 (clients: n = 350; clinicians: n = 146) and 2021 (clients: n = 357; clinicians: n = 122) at a Dutch mental health service. Participants evaluated their OIT and OGT experiences using newly developed service-evaluation questionnaires. For the appraisal score, we only used items that explicitly compared videoconferencing with face-to-face (FTF) care; principal axis factoring was used to derive appraisal scores. Hierarchical regression tested the added predictive value of survey year for appraisal of videoconferencing: step 1 included participant variables (gender, age, diagnosis/profession), and step 2 added survey year. Exploratory subgroup analyses examined within-year variation in appraisal by gender, age, and diagnosis/profession.
Results:
Despite a prevailing preference for FTF treatment, clients reported significantly higher appraisal with OIT in 2021 compared to 2020 (B = 0.22, P = .001), while appraisal of OGT did not differ significantly between years. Clinicians reported higher appraisal in 2021 than in 2020 for both OIT (B = 0.69, P < .001) and OGT (B = 1.40, P = .003). Exploratory subgroup analyses based on gender, age, or diagnosis found no meaningful differences in appraisal for either clients or clinicians.
Conclusions:
Appraisal of videoconferencing was higher in 2021 than in 2020, most clearly among clinicians, yet both clients and clinicians still preferred FTF care on average. At present, videoconferencing appears best suited as a complementary option, with relevance for expanding access to mental health care globally in a rapidly changing landscape.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.