Capturing Patients’ and Clinicians’ Experiences of Using Video Consultations in Mental Health Outpatient Services: Qualitative Thematic Analysis

Background: Over the last decade, there has been an increase in the evidence base supporting the efficacy of video consultations (VCs) in mental health services. Furthermore, the potential of VC treatment was also demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these promising results and conducive conditions for VCs, several studies have highlighted that the uptake and implementation of VCs continues to be slow, even after the pandemic. To facilitate and strengthen the implementation of VCs and exploit their potential as a useful tool for mental health disorder treatment, there is a need for a deeper understanding of the issues and experiences of implementing and using VCs as a treatment modality in clinical practice. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate patients’ and clinicians’ experiences and attitudes toward using VCs in clinical practice. Methods: Treatment was conducted through the VC modality. Semistructured interviews were conducted individually with patients (n=10) and focus group interview were conducted with clinicians (n=4). Patients had participated in weekly VC treatment over 2 months as part of mental health outpatient services in Denmark. Data from these interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Thematic analysis of the patient interviews yielded two main themes: (1) adjusting to the practicalities of the VC format and (2) the practice of therapy using VCs. Patients experienced that using VCs was easy and convenient, and it was possible to establish and maintain a therapeutic alliance. They also described the contact as different to in-person therapy. The thematic analysis conducted on clinicians’ experiences of using VCs yielded three themes: (1) a shift in mindset from resistance to acceptance, (2) the contact is different when using the VC modality, and (3) adapting to a new way of working. Clinicians experienced that their initial concerns and resistance toward VC implementation gradually diminished over time as they gained clinical experience of using the modality. They expressed that contact with patients can be different when using the VC modality and that it took time to adjust to a new way of working therapeutically. Conclusions: Both patients and clinicians experienced that VCs could enhance access to treatment and be meaningfully integrated into clinical practice. In addition, both groups described the contact when using the VC modality as being different to in-person therapy. Future research could examine patients’ and clinicians’ perceived differences regarding contact when using the VC modality and the implications for therapeutic interventions.