Pediatric Telepsychiatry in Ontario: Caregiver and Service Provider Perspectives

  • Natasha Greenberg
  • Katherine M. BoydellEmail author
  • Tiziana Volpe
Brief Report


Families in rural areas face significant geographic and economic obstacles to obtaining pediatric mental health services. Telepsychiatry promises the possibility of extending specialized expertise into areas that have no resident psychiatrists. In this study, user perspectives and experiences of a pediatric telepsychiatry program serving rural communities in Ontario, Canada, were explored. Qualitative, exploratory methods were utilized because of the complex nature of mental health services needs and provision in rural communities. Focus groups with rural mental health service providers and interviews with family caregivers of children receiving a telepsychiatry consultation were conducted. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the benefits and limitations of providing pediatric psychiatric services via video-technology to inform future program development and health policy. Whereas participants in the study indicated that their experiences with the telepsychiatry service had been positive, the need for additional local services to support treatment recommendations was emphasized.

Key Words

Children’s mental health telemedicine health policy program evaluation qualitative methods health care delivery 



The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services, and the cooperation and administrative support of the Telepsychiatry Program, Hospital for Sick Children.


  1. 1.
    Bishop JE, O’Reilly RL, Maddox K, et al. Client satisfaction in a feasibility study comparing face-to-face interviews with telepsychiatry. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2002;8(4):217–221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williams TL, May CR, Esmail A. Limitations of patient satisfaction studies in telehealthcare: A systematic review of the literature. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health. 2001;7(4):293–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gelber H. The experience in Victoria with telepsychiatry for the child and adolescent mental health service. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2001;7(Suppl2):32–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D’Souza R. A pilot study of an educational service for rural mental health practitioners in South Australia using telemedicine. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2000;6(1):187–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baer L, Elford DR, Cukor P. Telepsychiatry at forty: What have we learned? Harvard Review of Psychiatry. 1997;5(1):7–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alessi N. Child and adolescent telepsychiatry: reliability studies needed. Cyberpsychology and Behavior. 2000;3(6):1009–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aas IH. A qualitative study of the organizational consequences of telemedicine. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2001;7:18–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    May C, Gask L, Ellis N, et al. Telepsychiatry evaluation in the north west of England: preliminary results of a qualitative study. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2000;6(1):20–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ermer DJ. Experience with a rural telepsychiatry clinic for children and adolescents. Psychiatric Services. 1999;50(2):260–261.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Letvak S. The importance of social support for rural mental health. Issues in Mental Health Nursing. 2002;23:249–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Starr S, Campbell LR, Herrick CA. Factors affecting use of the mental health system by rural children. Issues in Mental Health Nursing. 2002;23:291–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCabe S, Macnee CL. Weaving a new safety net of mental health care in rural America: a model of integrated practice. Issues in Mental Health Nursing. 2002;23:263–278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boydell KM, Greenberg N, Volpe T. Designing a framework for evaluating pediatric telepsychiatry: a participatory approach. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2004;10(3):165–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patton MQ. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kitzinger J. The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health. 1994;16(1):103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Powell RA, Single HM, Lloyd KR. Focus groups in mental health research: enhancing the validity of user and provider questionnaires. International Journal of Social Psychology. 1996;42 (3):193–206.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goss JD, Leinbach TR. Focus groups as alternative research practice. Area. 1996;28(2):115–123.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Powell RA, Single HM. Focus groups. International Journal of Quality in Health Care. 1996;8(5):499–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kitzinger J. Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal. 1995;311:299–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morgan DL, ed. Successful Focus Groups. London: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morgan DL. Focus groups as qualitative research, 2nd ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1997.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Burgess J. Focusing on fear. Area. 1996;28(2):130–136.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Charmaz K. Translating graduate qualitative methods into undergraduate teaching: intensive interviewing as a case example. Teaching Sociology. 1991;19:384–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCracken G. The Long Interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.; 1988.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sandolowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing and Health. 2000;23: 334–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Diekelmann NL. Learning-as-testing: a Heideggerian hermeneutical analysis of the lived experiences of students and teachers in nursing. Advances in Nursing Science. 1992;14(3):72–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1998.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Erlandson DA, Harris EL, Skipper BL, et al. Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A Guide to Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.; 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natasha Greenberg
  • Katherine M. Boydell
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Tiziana Volpe
  1. 1.Community Health Systems Resource Group, The Hospital for Sick Children, Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry & Public Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department Public Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations