Experiences of Connecticut Community Health Center Patients With Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Since COVID-19 rapidly made telemedicine a necessity, it is clear that virtual patient visits are going to be part of the new norm in continued outpatient care as we move into a postpandemic reality. However, we are still learning about patients’ experiences and preferences amid the rapid and widespread deployment of telemedicine. Objective The aim of this paper is to determine patients’ satisfaction with and experiences of telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic among those seeking care at Community Health Center Association of Connecticut member clinics. Methods Data were collected using a 24-question phone survey, which asked about telehealth use, frequency of telehealth visits, and barriers experienced. Participants were eligible if they aged 18 years or older, were English speaking, and were receiving care at 1 of 3 participating Community Health Center Association of Connecticut clinics. Results A total of 383 participants completed the phone survey throughout July 2021. The median age grouping was between 55 and 59 years, and the majority (63%) were female. Since COVID-19, in total, 78% reported having one or more audio-only telehealth visits (from 31% before), and 53% had one or more video telehealth visit (from 13% before). Most reported being very satisfied with their visits (86%) and that they felt confident in their provider’s ability to address their needs (74%). Most did not experience technical problems or have difficulty understanding how to connect to their provider. Even among older participants (60 years and older), only 28% reported having difficulty understanding how to connect to their provider, compared with 23% of 40- to 59-year-old patients and 18% of 18- to 39-year-old patients. Moreover, 45% reported being very likely to continue using telehealth even after the pandemic. However, 52% would have liked the option of in-person visits if they had been available in the past year. Conclusions These results suggest that most patients find telehealth visits an appropriate and accessible means of accessing health care, though some still like the option of seeing their provider in person. Future work should compare provider and patient experiences and identify optimal means of making the encounters mutually satisfying and beneficial. Conflicts of Interest None declared.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».