MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4317879904 · doi:10.2196/39429

Can Hybrid In-Person and Virtual Care Delivery Models Increase Telehealth Access to Vulnerable Populations in the Post–COVID-19 Era?

2023· article· en· W4317879904 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christina McGinnis, Leah Shafran Topaz, Meghan Reading Turchioe, Ruth Masterson Creber, Brock Daniels

Notice bibliographique

RevueIproceedings · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTelehealthLonelinessSocial distanceTelemedicineMedicineLikert scaleSocial isolationDemographicsUCLA Loneliness ScaleScale (ratio)Health carePandemicFamily medicineGerontologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychologyDemographyPsychiatryGeographyDiseaseInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically increased telehealth use; however, it simultaneously widened the digital health divide. Several studies in New York City (NYC) demonstrated that communities with the highest COVID-19 prevalence also had the lowest telehealth use. Moreover, the social distancing measures used to curb COVID-19 led to isolation, loneliness, and the avoidance of needed in-person care. Mobile integrated health programs utilizing both in-person components and virtual components can overcome social determinants that limit access to telehealth. Our mobile integrated health program, community teleparamedicine (CTP), employs care managers and community paramedics to engage patients with chronic illness and facilitate telehealth visits with emergency physicians. Objective We aimed to (1) describe the CTP cohort with respect to demographics and self-reported loneliness and (2) compare CTP visit locations to COVID-19 case rates by zip code. Methods Demographics were collected at CTP enrollment, and patients completed the UCLA Loneliness Scale (a summed score of 7 or higher indicates significant loneliness). Patients’ experiences with CTP were assessed by using anonymous postvisit surveys with a 5-point Likert scale. We presented descriptive statistics of survey results. CTP patients’ home addresses were compared to modified zip code tabulation area data on cumulative rates of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people (NYC Department of Health’s COVID-19 GitHub repository). Results From January 2021 to February 2022, a total of 275 patients enrolled in CTP. These patients had an average age of 70 years, 49% were female, 53% were non-White, 16% were Hispanic or Latino, 42% resided in Manhattan, 30% resided in Brooklyn, 20% resided in Queens, and 8% resided in Bronx. Further, 1 in 5 patients reported significant loneliness; 37% lived alone; 61% were single, divorced, or widowed; and 70% did not have a home health aide. Only 8% did not own a computer, 4% did not have internet access, and 23% did not use a smartphone. Between April 2019 and October 2021, nearly 25% of NYC zip codes with CTP usage were among the top 50 zip codes with the highest cumulative rates of COVID-19 cases. CTP patients were satisfied with this hybrid model of virtual care; at least 95% of patients found that it was easy to connect to the physician, were satisfied with the care provided, felt less anxious about needing to return to the hospital, and agreed that CTP was easier than going to the hospital. Conclusions The hybrid in-person and virtual CTP program, which was specifically designed to address known barriers to accessing telehealth, successfully reached NYC communities that traditional telehealth programs did not, of which many experienced the highest rates of COVID-19. Our initial results indicate positive patient experiences; however, further qualitative research is needed to fully understand if facilitated telehealth also reduces isolation and loneliness as well as improves health and well-being. 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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,065
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,968

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,105
Tête enseignante GPT0,394
Écart entre enseignants0,289 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueIproceedingsMême sujetTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationTravaux en français237 207