Factors Associated With Online Patient-Provider Communications Among Cancer Survivors in the United States During COVID-19: Cross-sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Online patient-provider communication (OPPC) is crucial in enhancing access to health information, self-care, and related health outcomes among cancer survivors. The necessity of OPPC increased during SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19, yet investigations in vulnerable subgroups have been limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the prevalence of OPPC and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with OPPC among cancer survivors and adults without a history of cancer during COVID-19 versus pre-COVID-19. METHODS: Nationally representative cross-sectional survey data (Health Information National Trends Survey 5, 2017-2020) were used among cancer survivors (N=1900) and adults without a history of cancer (N=13,292). COVID-19 data included data from February to June 2020. We calculated the prevalence of 3 types of OPPC, defined as using the email/internet, tablet/smartphone, or electronic health record (EHR) for patient-provider communication, in the past 12 months. To investigate the associations of sociodemographic and clinical factors with OPPC, multivariable-adjusted weighted logistic regression was performed to obtain odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: The average prevalence of OPPC increased from pre-COVID to COVID among cancer survivors (39.7% vs 49.7%, email/internet; 32.2% vs 37.9%, tablet/smartphone; 19.0% vs 30.0%, EHR). Cancer survivors (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06-1.63) were slightly more likely to use email/internet communications than adults without a history of cancer prior to COVID-19. Among cancer survivors, the email/internet (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08-2.40) and EHRs (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.22-3.02) were more likely to be used during COVID-19 than pre-COVID-19. During COVID-19, subgroups of cancer survivors, including Hispanics (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09-0.71 vs non-Hispanic Whites) or those with the lowest income (US $50,000-<US $75,000: OR 6.14, 95% CI 1.99-18.92; ≥US $75,000: OR 0.42, 95% CI 1.56-11.28 vs <US $20,000), with no usual source of care (OR 6.17, 95% CI 2.12-17.99), or reporting depression (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.78) were less likely to use email/internet, and those who were the oldest (age 35-49 years: OR 9.33, 95% CI 2.18-40.01; age 50-64 years: OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.20-10.70; age 65-74 years: OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.09-8.76 vs age≥75 years), were unmarried (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.06-4.86), or had public/no health insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, or other: ORs 0.19-0.21 vs private) were less likely to use a tablet/smartphone to communicate with providers. Cancer survivors with a usual source of care (OR 6.23, 95% CI 1.66-23.39) or health care office visits in a year (ORs 7.55-8.25) were significantly more likely to use EHRs to communicate. Although it was not observed in cancer survivors, a lower education level was associated with lower OPPC among adults without a history of cancer during COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identified vulnerable subgroups of cancer survivors who were left behind in OPPC, which is increasingly becoming part of health care. These vulnerable subgroups of cancer survivors with lower OPPC should be helped through multidimensional interventions to prevent further inequities.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 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 ».