OBJECTIVE: This was a descriptive study to determine the telepsychiatry exposure, interest, and intention to use among young psychiatrists in the Philippines in December 2014. METHODOLOGY: This was done through a 14 to 25 item online survey adapted from Glover et al. (2013)1. Through purposive sampling, the population of third and fourth year residents and graduates within the last two years of accredited psychiatry training institutions was included in the study. RESULTS: Seventeen young psychiatrists participated. Exposure to telepsychiatry of the respondents varied with 10 (58.82%) having had independent study, three (17.65%) having had didactics, and 11 (64.71%) having had awareness about telepsychiatry initiatives in their training institution. Ten respondents (58.82%) expressed interest in telepsychiatry as well as the importance and usefulness of telepsychiatry exposure. Despite this, only six (35.29%) young psychiatrists thought that telepsychiatry should be part of the residency training curriculum. As for intention to use, only eight (47.06%) respondents expressed receptiveness to it, two did not (11.76%), and seven were undecided (41.18%). CONCLUSION Though more than half of the respondents had exposure to telepsychiatry and considered it interesting and relevant, less than half of them had any actual intention to use it in their clinical practice.
Psychiatry ; Telemedicine

Objectives: This study described the demographic and clinical profile, mental health problems, prevalence of psychiatric conditions, psychosocial interventions used, and outcomes of the management of mental health problems among in-patients admitted to non-psychiatry units of tertiary hospitals referred to mental health care providers; and described gender-disaggregated data related to mental health care providers and patients receiving psychosocial interventions in tertiary hospitals. Methods: This study employed a mixed-method design, using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies following the convergence model of triangulation. The following were the data sources: (1) cross-sectional review of charts of patients referred for psychosocial problems using the ICD-10 classification; (2) a survey of mental health service providers; (3) key informant interviews of mental health service providers; and (4) focus group discussions of mental health providers. All data were collated, compared, and contrasted, then analyzed using the convergence model of triangulation design. Results: Among the 3,502 patients in the chart review, 1,870 (53.40%) were males. The median age was 46.08 years and 92.06% were adults. The most common diagnosis among the patients were mood disorder (744, 21.25%) and organic mental disorder (710, 20.27%). Combination treatment of psychosocial intervention and pharmacology was the most common strategy received by patients. There was a higher proportion of patients admitted to public hospitals (996, 45.27%) who received psychosocial interventions only compared to those admitted to private hospitals (235, 18.05%). There were 3,453 out of 3,502 in-patients referred for psychiatric intervention. Of these 2,420 (70%) received psychoeducation, 2,365 (68.5%), received supportive psychotherapy/counseling, 535 (15.5%) family therapy, and 286 (8.3%) behavior modification. There were more patients given psychosocial interventions 2,541 (72.56%) who were discharged with instruction to follow-up, while around one in 10 (456, 13.02%) was not instructed to do a follow-up consultation. The types of interventions across all data sources were similar. Conclusion The most common type of management for psychosocial problems of in-patients in tertiary hospitals was a combination of psychosocial intervention and pharmacotherapy. Psychoeducation, supportive psychotherapy/ counseling, and family therapy were the most often given psychosocial interventions. The patient-related reasons for the choice of interventions were patient’s medical status (diagnosis and severity of symptoms) and psychological status (psychological mindedness), while the provider-related factors influencing the choice of intervention were provider’s skills and personal preference. Moreover, resources (human and material) and service provision policies (treatment guidelines and aftercare interventions) were the most common hospital-related factors. Further prospective research to determine the associated patients, providers, and hospital factors in larger geographic and cultural settings will provide evidence for the effectiveness and outcomes of psychosocial interventions.
psychosocial