module 6 discussion

2

Module 5 Discussion

Jachai Littlejohn

St. Thomas University

NUR-670-AP3

Dr. Mesa

September 25, 2025

Module 5 Discussion: Interpreting the Results of the Literature Review

Summarizing the Literature Review vs. Interpreting Search Results

Summarizing a literature review involves condensing and synthesizing the significant findings of multiple studies into a coherent narrative that answers the PICO question or research objective. Focus on trends, strengths, and gaps in the study to offer a comprehensive summary of the evidence. For example, in the review of integrated telepsychiatry, summarizing would highlight the main findings from systematic reviews, RCTs, and implementation studies showing that telepsychiatry improves engagement and reduces symptom severity in adults in mental health professional shortage areas (O’Callaghan et al., 2021; Sharma & Devan, 2021). Summaries are descriptive, organizing information, comparing treatments, and reporting outcome patterns in an accessible and complete manner.

Interpreting search results, by contrast, goes beyond description and involves critically evaluating the quality, applicability, and implications of the evidence for clinical practice. The evidence, biases, and generalizability to the target group must be considered while interpreting data. For example, Yellowlees et al. (2020) found that telepsychiatry might be adopted quickly during COVID-19, but sustainability and provider acceptability beyond crisis contexts must be considered. Similarly, Blease et al. (2020) highlight provider concerns about technology and patient relationships, which must be considered when implementing telepsychiatry. Interpreting outcomes helps doctors and stakeholders decide whether the evidence supports practice adjustments and what obstacles must be overcome.

Process Used to Interpret Search Results for the PICO Question

The process of interpreting the search results for the PICO question—examining whether integrated telepsychiatry increases treatment engagement and reduces symptoms compared to usual referral care, began with a critical appraisal of study quality. Based on the evidence hierarchy as a guide, as shown by Vatkar et al. (2025), systematic reviews and meta-analyses were prioritized since they synthesis several RCTs, minimizing random error and enhancing external validity. In their high-level synthesis of rural telepsychiatry, O’Callaghan et al. (2021) found consistent beneficial impacts on access and engagement. Sharma and Devan’s (2021) thematic evaluation confirmed that integrated telepsychiatry models beat referral-only treatment for adherence and engagement.

Next, interpretation required consideration of context and feasibility. For instance, Yellowlees et al. (2020) showed that whole mental clinics might switch to virtual treatment fast, indicating scalability. This research was acquired during a pandemic when patients and providers were highly motivated to use virtual treatment; therefore, it should be taken carefully. Adams et al. (2022) showed how asynchronous primary care-psychiatry communication might improve access. These results show that a hybrid paradigm of synchronous telepsychiatry and e-consultation may be best for shortage regions.

Another step in interpretation involved evaluating limitations and potential biases. Several studies found provider reluctance, technological constraints, and reimbursement issues (Blease et al., 2020). These results are important because they reveal real-world barriers to telepsychiatry’s efficacy. Thus, the interpretation process included both whether telepsychiatry works and what circumstances are needed, such as provider training, internet connectivity, and legislative support.

Finally, the synthesis of interpreted results led to practical recommendations. Integrated telepsychiatry may increase engagement and symptom reduction in marginalized groups, but adoption requires aligning evidence with local resources and resolving hurdles. This interpretation supports the use of integrated telepsychiatry in primary care shortage regions if healthcare organizations invest in provider preparedness, infrastructure, and patient outcomes monitoring.

References

Blease, C., Locher, C., Leon-Carlyle, M., & Doraiswamy, M. (2020). Artificial intelligence and the future of psychiatry: Qualitative findings from a global physician survey.
DIGITAL HEALTH,
6, 205520762096835.

O’Callaghan, E. L., McAllister, L., & Wilson, L. (2021). Telepsychiatry in rural healthcare delivery: Systematic review and policy implications. Journal of Rural Health, 37(1), 220–230.

Sharma, G., & Devan, K. (2021). The effectiveness of telepsychiatry: thematic review.
BJPsych Bulletin,
47(2), 1–8.

Thomas, Lim, C. T., & Huang, H. (2022). The Practice of Psychiatric E-Consultation: Current State and Future Directions.
Harvard Review of Psychiatry.

Vatkar, A., Kale, S., Shyam, A., & Srivastava, S. (2025). Understanding the Levels of Evidence in Medical Research.
Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports,
15(5), 6–9.

Yellowlees, P., Nakagawa, K., Pakyurek, M., Hanson, A., Elder, J., & Kales, H. C. (2020). Rapid Conversion of an Outpatient Psychiatric Clinic to a 100% Virtual Telepsychiatry Clinic in Response to COVID-19.
Psychiatric Services,
71(7), 749–752.