Applicability of Telemedicine for Assessing Patients With Schizophrenia: Acceptance and Reliability
J Clin Psychiatry 1997;58:22-25
© Copyright 2014 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
Purchase This PDF for $40.00
If you are not a paid subscriber, you may purchase the PDF.
(You'll need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
Receive immediate full-text access to JCP. You can subscribe to JCP online-only ($86) or print + online ($156 individual).
With your subscription, receive a free PDF collection of the NCDEU Festschrift articles. Hurry! This offer ends December 31, 2011.
If you are a paid subscriber to JCP and do not yet have a username and password, activate your subscription now.
As a paid subscriber who has activated your subscription, you have access to the HTML and PDF versions of this item.
Click here to login.
Did you forget your password?
Still can't log in? Contact the Circulation Department at 1-800-489-1001 x4 or send email
Background: Telemedicine holds promise for providing expert psychiatric consultation to underserved populations, but has not been quantitatively studied in schizophrenia or any other major mental disorder. This study was conducted to assess the reliability and acceptance of videoconferencing equipment in the assessment of patients with schizophrenia.
Method: We assessed reliability of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS), and Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) under three conditions: (1) in person, (2) by videoconferencing at low (128 kilobits per second [kbs]) bandwidth, (3) by videoconferencing at high (384 kbs) bandwidth. All 45 patients met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia. All patients and the two interviewers rated various aspects of the study interviews against previous live psychiatric interviews.
Results: Total scores on both the BPRS and SAPS were assessed equally reliably by the three media. Total score on the SANS was less reliably assessed at the low bandwidth, as were several specific negative symptoms of schizophrenia that depend heavily on nonverbal cues. Video interviews were well accepted by patients in both groups, although patients in the high bandwidth group were more likely to prefer the video interview to a live interview.
Conclusion: Global severity of schizophrenia and overall severity of positive symptoms were reliably assessed by videoconferencing technology. Higher bandwidth resulted in more reliable assessment of negative symptoms and was preferred over low bandwidth, although patients' and raters' acceptance of video was good in both conditions. Videoconsultation appears to be a reliable method of assessing schizophrenic patients in remote locations who have limited access to expert consultation.