From the Editor

With COVID-19, mental health services were transformed in a matter of weeks when much care shifted to virtual. Today, we are all proficient in our webcams and familiar with terms like Zoom fatigue.

From a system perspective, we have unanswered questions: What’s the right amount of virtual care? When is it appropriate? In the first selection, Matthew Crocker (of the Canadian Institute for Health Information) and his co-authors focus on virtual versus in-person follow-up care after an ED visit in Ontario. Drawing on databases, they analyzed more than 28 000 such visits, wondering if the virtual option led to more adverse psychiatric outcomes. “These results support virtual care as a modality to increase access to follow-up after an acute care psychiatric encounter across a wide range of diagnoses.” We consider the paper and its implications.

Apps for mental health are increasingly popular; the mental health app market may be worth more than $24 billion by 2030, according to one estimate. In the second selection from Internet Interventions, John A. Cunningham (of the University of Toronto) and co-authors describe a new RCT involving participants who were concerned about their drinking. 761 were given either an app with several intervention modules or just educational materials. They were then followed for six months. “The results of this trial provide some supportive evidence that smartphone apps can reduce unhealthy alcohol consumption.”

And in the third selection, Dr. Jonathan Reisman, an ED physician, writes about AI. In a provocative essay for The New York Times, he argues that physicians often rely on scripts to seem compassionate – such as when we deliver bad news. AI, he reasons then, could do that well. “It doesn’t actually matter if doctors feel compassion or empathy toward patients; it only matters if they act like it. In much the same way, it doesn’t matter that A.I. has no idea what we, or it, are even talking about.”

DG

Continue reading