How digital health risks recreating the isolation it aims to solve for people with serious mental illness

IntroductionPeople with serious mental illness (SMI), including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other psychotic illness, continue to have disproportionately poor physical health outcomes in the UK. They have a reduced life expectancy of between 15 and 20 years on average compared to the general population, largely as a result of preventable physical illnesses such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer.1,2 Despite national policies of parity of esteem, only 30–50% of those with SMI receive preventive healthcare interventions such as cancer screening, immunisations, and annual health checks.2,3The rapid growth of digital health services throughout and after the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced additional complexity to this landscape. The shift toward “total triage,” remote consultations, online booking systems, and patient portals has undoubtedly increased efficiency and access for many. However, it has also deepened digital inequalities—particularly for individuals with SMI, who are more likely to be digitally excluded due to low digital literacy, poverty, cognitive impairment, and mistrust of technology.4,5 A national survey undertaken by the Mental Health Foundation found that adults with pre-existing mental health problems were among the least likely to use online health services, finding lack of confidence, access, and personalisation to be underlying barriers.6This opinion article argues that, despite its promise, digital transformation in mental healthcare risks perpetuating the exclusionary logics of institutional care. Where once people with SMI were physically separated from society in asylums, now they may be digitally excluded—incapable of navigating systems, receiving care in a timely manner, or having their needs heard. Through the prism of primary care, which for many with SMI is still the most consistent point of contact, this paper explores how automation and depersonalisation in digital service delivery can echo historical pathways of disconnection. It calls for a reconsideration of digital health—one where human connection, therapeutic continuity, and equitable access are foregrounded as fundamental pillars, not an afterthought. This opinion paper acknowledges the limitation of relying primarily on secondary evidence. To enhance empirical depth, qualitative insights from advocacy experiences are integrated to illustrate real-world dimensions of digital exclusion.Key ethical concepts underpinning this viewpoint require clarification. 'Human care' refers explicitly to an ethical orientation characterised by empathetic responsiveness, emotional sensitivity, and personalised interaction that prioritises the specific psychological and emotional needs of the individual patient.7 This conceptualisation draws from care ethics, notably Tronto's framework, which emphasises attentiveness, responsibility, responsiveness, and relational engagement.8 The term 'relationship' in this context describes sustained therapeutic interactions marked by trust, continuity, emotional safety, and mutual understanding—integral to mental health recovery and dignity-based care, as articulated by Nordenfelt.9-A historical parallelFor much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, people with SMI in the UK were removed from society and institutionalised in asylums—environments often justified as protective or therapeutic, but which came to foster social exclusion, dependence, and loss of control.10 These institutions, in offering shelter, also created rigid regimes in which patients had no autonomy, were stripped of community connections, and were rendered passive recipients of care. The asylum regime was characterised by hierarchical control, relational discontinuity, and impersonality—a system that, over time, came to embody marginalisation in the name of care.Although the closure of asylums and the evolution of community mental health care were significant strides forward, there is growing concern that aspects of modern digital health care can recreate some of the exclusionary patterns of the past. In today's digital-first systems—and particularly in the context of primary care triage—patients with SMI often find themselves excluded once more, not behind locked doors but behind password-protected portals, templated forms, and impersonal interfaces.5 Individuals with complicated mental health needs are being funnelled into asynchronous, algorithm-led pathways with little room for therapeutic contact or clinical judgment.11 A person seeking assistance may be requested to complete an online form, to subsequently receive a standardised reply, a referral to a different portal, or a telephone call from a healthcare worker (unknown to the patient) sometime afterward. The promise of access is technically fulfilled—but the quality of care is compromised. In some cases, individuals report being “referred to nowhere,” with no indication whether their message was received or understood.Recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) reports have highlighted how digital systems can inadvertently perpetuate the disconnection already felt by vulnerable patients from health services, particularly where such systems are not relationally grounded or default to one-size-fits-all automation.12 While technology can be efficient, it can also bypass human contact—replicating, in new form, the very same dynamics of invisibility and powerlessness that were features of institutional psychiatry.-How digital systems unintentionally diminish voice and agencyOnline consultation systems are now ubiquitous across UK primary care, offering asynchronous appointment request, advice, or care initiation pathways. While such systems improve convenience and accessibility for some, they also introduce new barriers to communication—particularly for those with SMI.13 These systems rely heavily on patients being able to articulate their concerns in a coherent, legible, and clear way within restricted text boxes. Yet for individuals experiencing paranoia, cognitive disorganisation, or flattened affect, the capacity for self-advocacy through the written medium can be severely impaired.14However, experiences of digital exclusion vary widely within the SMI population, influenced by specific diagnoses, cognitive abilities, socioeconomic factors, and cultural backgrounds. For example, individuals with paranoid schizophrenia might experience heightened anxiety around digital surveillance, whereas those with bipolar disorder may struggle particularly during depressive episodes to maintain sustained engagement with digital systems.Having to navigate dropdown menus or construct coherent symptom narratives is, in and of itself, a barrier to access. For someone in psychosis or in the throes of a depressive episode, completing an online form may not only be difficult—it may be intrusive, even threatening. A recent report from Mind highlighted that many individuals with SMI actively avoid digital interactions for fear of being watched or misread, with some reporting online forms as making them feel depersonalised and ignored.15 The risk is not just disengagement, but silent decline.Also, the majority of the e-consultation systems used in primary care lack advanced triage pathways for mental health. Suicidality, paranoia, or medication non-adherence may be buried in free text or inappropriately routed, with responses that are late or inappropriate.11 The systems are designed for clarity and rapidity—not for the subtle, often fragmented expressions of psychological distress that characterize many SMI presentations. What is lost in such a model is relational intelligence—the clinical instinct that is gleaned from tone, facial expression, pacing, and body language. In face-to-face or even telephone consultations, such cues often help clinicians to pick up on risk, tailor their communication, and build rapport. By comparison, a character-limited online submission strips away this clinical texture, reducing a complex human narrative to a digital snapshot.As a result, people with SMI may not only receive slower, but also shallower care—less responsive, less human, and ultimately less safe. What is streamlined at the system level can, for the individual, be alienating or feel hopeless—leading to mounting mistrust and disengagement from health services.-The psychological risks of digital-only mental health modelsDigital systems are likely to be designed for efficiency—automating triage, standardising communication, and accelerating access to care pathways. For individuals with SMI, however, the psychological experience of interacting with such systems can be profoundly negative. A chatbot interface or impersonal e-consult form, harmless as it may appear to others, can be perceived as robotic, invalidating, or even persecutory for an individual who is psychotic or severely depressed. The lack of human responsiveness can reinforce pre-existing persecutory, abandonment, or worthlessness beliefs.14For those who have experienced institutionalisation or disconnection from services in the past, digital-only pathways risk re-opening old wounds. The system may appear to be “listening,” but its silence—or automated response—can be indistinguishable from rejection or abandonment. For some, patients report feeling more like data points than humans. Such reactions are not merely emotional reactions; they are guided by past experiences of marginalising systems, frequently beginning in adolescence or young adulthood.15,16This psychological burden is juxtaposed against the NHS Long Term Plan vision of personalised care, continuity, and improved access to mental healthcare.10,11 While the plan supports digital innovation, it also acknowledges the need to reduce inequality and ensure inclusivity of services. Yet, there is a gap between policy intent and daily reality. As digital-by-default becomes standard, those with SMI are at risk of being pushed to the periphery—not by active exclusion, but by incremental erosion of significant contact.Evidence from The King’s Fund and The Health Foundation also shows that digital exclusion is strongly linked with loneliness, disengagement, and poorer health outcomes.17 If the sole entrance to care is one that is felt to be strange or menacing, patients will be less inclined to go through it. To be truly accessible, mental health services cannot simply open the door—they have to extend a human welcome.-Recognising diversity within serious mental illnessAcknowledging diversity within the SMI population is crucial to designing effective digital mental health interventions. Individuals with serious mental illness constitute a heterogeneous group, differing significantly in symptom presentation, cognitive function, emotional resilience, digital literacy, socioeconomic status, and cultural contexts.18 For instance, people experiencing psychosis may require interfaces that minimise feelings of surveillance or intrusion, while those experiencing severe depressive episodes might benefit from gentle, stepwise engagement strategies.Socioeconomic differences also significantly influence digital access and engagement. Patients from lower socioeconomic backgrounds often experience compounded barriers, including limited device availability, unstable internet access, and lower baseline digital literacy, each requiring distinct interventions.19 Cultural background further shapes attitudes toward digital healthcare, influencing trust, perceived stigma, and willingness to engage.Thus, digital health strategies must move beyond one-size-fits-all solutions, employing flexible, culturally sensitive, and personalised approaches tailored explicitly to the diverse realities of individuals within the SMI population.-A primary care mandatePrimary care occupies a unique position in the UK healthcare system—not just as the first point of contact, but as a exemplar of long-term, relationship-based care.20 For policy proposals to be actionable within NHS primary care, they must explicitly consider existing operational constraints, institutional structures, and feasibility within current funding frameworks. The following strategies are proposed with clear implementation pathways tailored to the operational realities of NHS primary care settings. For people with SMI, who often have complex needs and fluctuating capacity to engage, this continuity is paramount. But as general practice embraces digital pathways at pace, it must negotiate a paradox: how to modernise systems without mechanising relationships. So far, much of the digital transformation has been focused on transactional efficiency—triaging demand, streamlining booking, and expanding remote access. These are necessary innovations, but insufficient when the patient journey is shaped as much by emotional safety and therapeutic rapport as clinical urgency. However, it would be overly simplistic to frame digital technology and human care as inherently oppositional. Evidence indicates that thoughtfully implemented digital interventions, such as video consultations and personalised messaging services, can significantly enhance relational continuity, improve patient engagement, and facilitate timely care delivery. If general practice is to take a lead on digital mental health care for people with SMI, it must create systems that invite patients in—not merely process them through.- Bridging technology and relational careEmerging research and NHS pilot studies illustrate how digital technology can positively impact the relational dimensions of healthcare.21 For instance, digital platforms enabling video consultations have allowed continuity of therapeutic relationships, particularly important for patients experiencing severe anxiety or social withdrawal. Similarly, text-based interactions, managed sensitively, can support those who find face-to-face interactions overwhelming or anxiety-inducing, thus enhancing their ability to express concerns more freely.Successful case examples include NHS digital initiatives where patient-clinician relationships were notably strengthened through virtual follow-up appointments, thereby providing emotional reassurance and maintaining a consistent therapeutic presence.22 These examples underline the potential for digital tools, if appropriately designed, to be integrated seamlessly into relational care models. Thus, rather than replacing human interaction, technology can serve as a meaningful adjunct to enhance relational quality and clinical effectiveness.Digital triage systems, as presently configured, have a tendency to assume a level of self-advocacy and coherence that individuals with SMI are not able to sustain consistently. One answer is to re-design such systems to work as connectors rather than filters. Instead of screening out complexity, digital interfaces must be configured to sense vulnerability, cue relational responses, and fast-track continuity. This would require not only technical redesign but a philosophical shift in how practices respond to digital demand, in essence seeing it as an opportunity for meaningful contact. Practices can utilise digital flags in their systems to alert staff to individuals with known mental health diagnoses, previous safeguarding concerns, or a history of disengagement. These alerts can then prompt proactive outreach—often by a known team member—who can make first contact through the patient’s preferred method, whether that is telephone, text, or face-to-face.This approach must be matched with investment in reshaping the workforce. While many practices have built their multidisciplinary teams, relatively few have created posts that bridge the digital and relational divide explicitly. The creation of digital inclusion or navigation posts could the landscape. Such individuals would not merely support but would be to the mental health patients through online booking on their and being a human voice within an they could work social community mental health and mental health in primary care that digital access a of a plan and not a is in as a by systems are designed around patients rather than from contact with Practices must with patients who have or with digital systems, to which features or facilitate service and actionable from forms to offering points of contact at digital such help for individuals with SMI, who report feeling within healthcare settings. By having into the of their care access, they a sense of and often but is the of and In digitally staff still the human interface of general Yet they are to digital exclusion or when disengagement. Practices must introduce for staff that them to access with and with This of mental health must be a not a of care must be as a digital In the of complete triage and patients are likely to be to the of past While from an access this model the relationships that are most protective for those with Practices be and continuity for individuals on serious mental illness booking systems preferred clinicians where or at least patients to a continuity In patients at risk of disengagement could be actively a care or who up on them across Such personalisation the emotional and cognitive of having to a barrier to a system must beyond access and to qualitative of digital and but whether digital systems are across patient Care could digital inclusion of primary care to which are in digital and Practices could be to respond with tailored offering digital expanding or consultation for patients who between digital and face-to-face national policy is to the complexity of digital care has been as an answer to access and But for SMI a different approach is NHS could consider on digital mental health accessibility in primary care, as it has with the current This would help to make as offering appointment or digital and not this would that inclusion is a safety and not a service and institutional feasibility of implementation of is grounded in current NHS and funding For instance, the creation of inclusion can be integrated into primary care through existing funding such as the These would with current and Care existing without requiring new funding staff in digital mental health can be into annual already in NHS Care can lead this by NHS and already through NHS and Health digital inclusion could be into existing Care current such as Quality and and Care By explicitly including digital inclusion in primary care feasibility is through existing NHS national NHS for digital accessibility in mental health could by the making and for within existing NHS funding The journey of digital transformation in healthcare has been one of and often But without risks perpetuating the it to For those with SMI, risks are not they are already in needs and interactions that feel more like than care. As the NHS access, it must the between and between digital and must be to other whether digital health can more but whether it the people in the whether it can clinical but whether it can clinical relationships. In mental where recovery often on trust, and emotional safety, are the that are care, for its continuity and cultural is one of the few clinical where therapeutic relationships are over rather than It is that people with SMI often find after years of fragmented or institutional care. If digital systems are to this rather than they must be designed with than the must to the of human not just its if the risk of digital mental health systems is not exclusion, but A system can a form, a triage and a care still to the person behind the For people with SMI, of distress are to to risk complex narratives into In the this can how clinicians more how patients to not as but as clinical across a ethical is the by digital the is is as to be But a system must the must It must that or are not to care but of the very need for it. will not from the of human complexity, but from how to within digital must be not just by or but by how they work for those least able to navigate them on their and digital must be as clinical not system to is not not not be among the most important of the of remote the of online mental health will be less by than by A that is and can but only can is not to whether can is to ensure that where they someone still on digital insights from narratives from advocacy experiences insights into the realities of digital exclusion among people with serious mental illness Patients frequently digital-first such as online consultations and as impersonal and during of psychological examples and emotional barriers, including psychological distress digital surveillance, and from report that many individuals with SMI digital systems as existing feelings of invisibility and disconnection from health services, thereby their sense of the impersonal of automated triage systems is often experienced as invalidating, an additional psychological burden for individuals already with mental health Such narratives the need for digital health services to relational responsiveness, and empathetic interaction to ensure insights the empirical the digital exclusion to people with serious mental illness and crucial for within digital health practice its relational to can it be to the of digital transformation without But it can than other of the health and the tools, and primary care can lead a one in which technology the human but it. For people with serious mental illness, this a the between access and and mental health must be built around this with primary care as its and most