Association Between Video-Based Telemedicine Visits and Medication Adherence Among Patients With Heart Failure: Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the exponential growth in telemedicine visits in clinical practice due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it remains unknown if telemedicine visits achieved similar adherence to prescribed medications as in-person office visits for patients with heart failure. Objective: Our study examined the association between telemedicine visits (vs in-person visits) and medication adherence in patients with heart failure. Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of adult patients with a diagnosis of heart failure or an ejection fraction of ≤40% using data between April 1 and October 1, 2020. This period was used because New York University approved telemedicine visits for both established and new patients by April 1, 2020. The time zero window was between April 1 and October 1, 2020, then each identified patient was monitored for up to 180 days. Medication adherence was measured by the mean proportion of days covered (PDC) within 180 days, and categorized as adherent if the PDC was ≥0.8. Patients were included in the telemedicine exposure group or in-person group if all encounters were video visits or in-person office visits, respectively. Poisson regression and logistic regression models were used for the analyses. Results: A total of 9521 individuals were included in this analysis (telemedicine visits only: n=830 in-person office visits only: n=8691). Overall, the mean age was 76.7 (SD 12.4) years. Most of the patients were White (n=6996, 73.5%), followed by Black (n=1060, 11.1%) and Asian (n=290, 3%). Over half of the patients were male (n=5383, 56.5%) and over half were married or living with partners (n=4914, 51.6%). Most patients' health insurance was covered by Medicare (n=7163, 75.2%), followed by commercial insurance (n=1687, 17.7%) and Medicaid (n=639, 6.7%). Overall, the average PDC was 0.81 (SD 0.286) and 71.3% (6793/9521) of patients had a PDC≥0.8. There was no significant difference in mean PDC between the telemedicine and in-person office groups (mean 0.794, SD 0.294 vs mean 0.812, SD 0.285) with a rate ratio of 0.99 (95% CI 0.96-1.02; P=.09). Similarly, there was no significant difference in adherence rates between the telemedicine and in-person office groups (573/830, 69% vs 6220/8691, 71.6%), with an odds ratio of 0.94 (95% CI 0.81-1.11; P=.12). The conclusion remained the same after adjusting for covariates (eg, age, sex, race, marriage, language, and insurance). Conclusions: We found similar rates of medication adherence among patients with heart failure who were being seen via telemedicine or in-person visits. Our findings are important for clinical practice because we provide real-world evidence that telemedicine can be an approach for outpatient visits for patients with heart failure. As telemedicine is more convenient and avoids transportation issues, it may be an alternative way to maintain the same medication adherence as in-person visits for patients with heart failure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".