IMPORTANCE Video or telephone telemedicine can offer patients access to a clinician without arranging for transportation or spending time in a waiting room, but little is known about patient characteristics associated with choosing between telemedicine or office visits.OBJECTIVE To examine patient characteristics associated with choosing a telemedicine visit vs office visit with the same primary care clinicians. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis cross-sectional study included data from 1 131 722 patients who scheduled a primary care appointment through the Kaiser Permanente Northern California patient portal between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018. All completed primary care appointments booked via the patient portal were identified. Only index visits without any other clinical visits within 7 days were included to define a relatively distinct patient-initiated care-seeking episode. Visits for routine physical, which are not telemedicine-eligible, were excluded. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESPatient choice between an office, video, or telephone visit.Relative risk ratios (RRRs) for patient sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, neighborhood socioeconomic status, language preference), technology access (neighborhood residential internet, mobile portal use), visiting the patient's own personal primary care clinician, and in-person visit barriers (travel-time, parking, cost-sharing), associated with choice of video or telephone telemedicine (vs office visit). RESULTSOf 2 178 440 patient-scheduled primary care visits scheduled by 1 131 722 patients, 86% were scheduled as office visits and 14% as telemedicine visits, with 7% of the telemedicine visits by video. Choosing telemedicine was statistically significantly associated with patient sociodemographic characteristics. For example, patients aged 65 years and over were less likely than patients aged 18 to 44 years to choose telemedicine (RRR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.22-0.26 for video visit; RRR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.54-0.57 for telephone visit). Choosing telemedicine was also statistically significantly associated with technology access (patients living in a neighborhood with high rates of residential internet access were more likely to choose a video visit than patients whose neighborhoods had low internet access: RRR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14); as well as in-person visit barriers (patients whose clinic had a paid parking structure were more likely to choose a telemedicine visit than patients whose facility had free parking: RRR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.41-2.05 for video visit; and RRR, 1.73, 95% CI, 1.61-1.86 for telephone visit). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this cross-sectional study, patients usually chose an in-person visit when scheduling an appointment online through the portal. Telemedicine may offer the (continued) Key Points Question Which patient characteristics are associated with choosing either a telemedicine visit or an office visit with the same primary care clinician? Findings In this cross-...
If short-term gains in adherence persist, this low-cost intervention could improve survival outcomes for women with breast cancer. A larger, long-term study should examine if AI adherence and symptom burden improvements persist for a 5-year treatment period.
Background Physicians can receive federal payments for meaningful use of complete certified electronic health records (EHRs). Evidence is limited on how EHR use affects clinical care and outcomes. Objective To examine the association between use of a commercially available certified EHR and clinical care processes and disease control in patients with diabetes. Design Quasi-experimental design with outpatient EHR implementation sequentially across 17 medical centers. Multivariate analyses adjusted for patient characteristics, medical center, time trends, and patient-level clustering. Setting Kaiser Permanente Northern California, an integrated delivery system. Patients 169 711 patients with diabetes mellitus. Intervention Use of a commercially available certified EHR. Measurements Drug treatment intensification and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) testing and values. Results Use of an EHR was associated with statistically significant improvements in treatment intensification after HbA1c values of 9% or greater (odds ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.06 to 1.14]) or LDL-C values of 2.6 to 3.3 mmol/L (100 to 129 mg/dL) (odds ratio, 1.06 [CI, 1.03 to 1.09]); increases in 365-day retesting for HbA1c and LDL-C levels among all patients, with the most dramatic change among patients with the worst disease control (HbA1c ≥9% or LDL-C ≥3.4 mmol/L [ ≥130 mg/dL]); and decreased 90-day retesting among patients with HbA1c level less than 7% or LDL-C level less than 2.6 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL). The EHR was also associated with statistically significant reductions in HbA1c and LDL-C levels, with the largest reductions among patients with the worst control (0.06-mmol/L [2.19-mg/dL] reduction among patients with baseline LDL-C ≥3.4 mmol/L [ ≥130 mg/dL]; P < 0.001). Limitation The EHR was implemented in a setting with strong baseline performance on cardiovascular care quality measures. Conclusion Use of a commercially available, certified EHR was associated with improved drug treatment intensification, monitoring, and physiologic control among patients with diabetes, with greater improvements among patients with worse control and less testing in patients already meeting guideline-recommended glycemic and lipid targets. Primary Funding Source National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
As the availability and use of patient portals increase, it is important to understand which patients have limited access and the barriers they may face. Improving internet access and making portals available across multiple platforms, including mobile, may reduce some disparities in secure message use.
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.