Experiences and Perceptions of Telehealth Visits in Diabetes Care During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes and Their Providers: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth has been widely adopted in outpatient settings in the United States. Although telehealth visits are publicly accepted in different settings, little is known about the situation after the wide adoption of telehealth from the perspectives of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) and their providers. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators of maintaining continuity of care using telehealth for patients with T2D in a diabetes specialty clinic. METHODS: As the second phase of a multimethod study to understand missed appointments among adults with T2D, we conducted semistructured, individual, in-depth phone or Zoom interviews with 23 adults with T2D (14/23, 61% women; mean age 55.1, SD 14.4, range 35-77 years) and 10 providers from diabetes clinics in a tertiary academic medical center in Maryland. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic content analysis by the research team. RESULTS: Adults with T2D and their providers generally reported positive experiences with telehealth visits for diabetes care with some technical challenges resulting in the need for in-person visits. We identified the following 3 themes: (1) "perceived benefits of telehealth visits," such as convenience, time and financial efficiencies, and independence from caregivers, benefits shared by both patients and providers; (2) "perceived technological challenges of telehealth visits," such as disparities in digital health literacy, frustration caused by unstable internet connection, and difficulty sharing glucose data, challenges shared by both patients and providers; and (3) "impact of telehealth visits on the quality of diabetes care," including lack of diabetes quality measures and needs and preferences for in-person visits, shared mainly from providers' perspectives with some patient input. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth is generally received positively in diabetes care with some persistent challenges that might compromise the quality of diabetes care. Telehealth technology and glucose data platforms must incorporate user experience and user-centered design to optimize telehealth use in diabetes care. Clinical practices need to consider new workflows for telehealth visits to facilitate easier follow-up scheduling and lab completion. Future research to investigate the ideal balance between in-person and telehealth visits in diabetes care is warranted to enhance the quality of diabetes care and to optimize diabetes outcomes. Policy flexibilities should also be considered to broaden access to diabetes care for all patients with T2D.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".