Objective: The objectives of this study were to demonstrate the feasibility of telehealth technology to provide a team approach to diabetes care for rural patients and determine its effect on patient outcomes when compared with face-to-face diabetes visits. Materials and Methods: An evaluation of a patient-centered interdisciplinary team approach to diabetes management compared telehealth with face-to-face visits on receipt of recommended preventive guidelines, vascular risk factor control, patient satisfaction, and diabetes self-management at baseline and 1, 2, and 3 years postintervention. Results: One-year postintervention the receipt of recommended dilated eye exams increased 31% and 43% among telehealth and face-to-face patients, respectively (p = 0.28). Control of two or more risk factors increased 37% and 69% (p = 0.21). Patient diabetes care satisfaction rates increased 191% and 131% among telehealth and face-to-face patients, respectively (p = 0.51). A comparison of telehealth with face-to-face patients resulted in increased self-reported blood glucose monitoring as instructed (97% vs. 89%; p = 0.63) and increased dietary adherence (244% vs. 159%; p = 0.86), respectively. Receipt of a monofilament foot test showed a significantly greater improvement among face-to-face patients (17% vs. 35%; p = 0.01) at 1 year postintervention, but this difference disappeared in years 2 and 3. Conclusions: Telehealth proved to be an effective mode for the provision of diabetes care to rural patients. Few differences were detected in the delivery of a team approach to diabetes management via telehealth compared with face-to-face visits on receipt of preventive care services, vascular risk factor control, patient satisfaction, and patient self-management. A team approach using telehealth may be a viable strategy for addressing the unique challenges faced by patients living in rural communities.
The objective of this study was to determine the reliability of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) administration via telehealth with a focus on the auditory and visual test components. Reliability was assessed through use of an in-person collaborator and by assessment of faxed test copies. The MMSE was administered via telehealth with the assistance of a face-to-face collaborator. Patient responses were recorded by both the remote and in-person nurse and compared item by item; total scores for each subject were also compared. Visual items were assessed through a blinded separate scoring of a faxed copy. Percent agreement per item and total score were calculated and correlations between scores were determined by Pearson correlation coefficients. Mean score differences and associated 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Eighty percent of individual items demonstrated remote to in-person agreement of >95% and all items were >85.5% in agreement. Pearson correlation coefficients demonstrated high correlations (>0.86) between 80% of the items examined. Mean differences in scored test items were not significantly different from zero. This study demonstrates the utility of using telehealth for cognitive assessment by MMSE. It supports the use of telehealth to improve healthcare access among patients for whom distance, cost, and mobility are potential barriers to attending face-to-face clinical visits. Continued validation and reliability testing is warranted to ensure that all healthcare provided via telehealth maintains an equal quality level to that of in-person care.
HBPM with smartphone technology has the potential to improve HTN management among patients with uncontrolled or newly diagnosed HTN. Technology needs to be easy to use and operate and would work best when integrated into local electronic health record systems. In systems without this capability, medical assistants or other personnel may be trained to facilitate the process. Nurse navigator involvement was instrumental in bridging communication between the patients and provider.
ObjectiveDetermine the effectiveness of a 16-week modified diabetes prevention program (DPP) administered simultaneously to multiple rural communities from a single urban site, as compared with a similar face-to-face intervention. A 12-week intervention was evaluated to consider minimization of staff costs in communities where resources are limited.Research design and methodsA prospective cohort study compared DPP interventions implemented in rural (via telehealth technology) and urban (face-to-face) communities using an intent-to-treat analysis. Primary outcome measures included 5% and 7% body weight loss. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine predictors of intervention success and included a variable for treatment effect.ResultsBetween 2010 and 2015, up to 667 participants were enrolled in the study representing one urban and 15 rural communities across Montana. The 16-week urban and rural interventions were comparable; 33.5% and 34.6% of participants lost 7% body weight, respectively; 50% and 47% lost 5% (p=0.22). Participants who were male (OR=2.41; 95% CI 1.32 to 4.40), had lower baseline body mass index (OR=1.03; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07), attended more sessions (OR=1.33; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58), and more frequently reported (OR=3.84; 95% CI 1.05 to 14.13) and met daily fat gram (OR=4.26; 95% CI 1.7 to 10.6) and weekly activity goals (OR=2.46; 95% CI 1.06 to 5.71) were more likely to meet their 7% weight loss goal. Predictors of meeting weight loss goals were similar for participants enrolled in the 12-week intervention.ConclusionsUsing telehealth technology to administer a modified DPP to multiple rural communities simultaneously demonstrated weight loss results comparable to those in a face-to-face intervention. Given the limitation of resources, linking rural areas to urban centers using telemedicine may increase access to much needed services to prevent or delay progression to diabetes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.