Telehealth in a Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy Clinic: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Charlotte M Ter Haar, Q. Class, William H Kobak, Lopa K Pandya
{"title":"Telehealth in a Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy Clinic: A Retrospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Charlotte M Ter Haar, Q. Class, William H Kobak, Lopa K Pandya","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IMPORTANCE\nTelehealth offers advantages to patients with pelvic floor disorders because they face unique barriers to care; however, attendance of telehealth appointments is unknown.\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nThe objective of this study was to examine the attendance of telehealth appointments in urogynecology patients receiving pelvic floor physical therapy as compared with in-person visits before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.\n\n\nSTUDY DESIGN\nWe retrospectively collected electronic medical record data from patients engaging in pelvic floor physical therapy from 2019, and pre- and post-COVID-19 in 2020. Information included appointment type, attendance, age, primary diagnoses, insurance status, and zip code. Cohort differences were examined using the χ2 test and analyses of variance.\n\n\nRESULTS\nOur sample included 359 individuals scheduled for in-person visits in 2019, 57 for telehealth visits in 2020, and 283 for in-person visits in 2020. Patients scheduled for telehealth appointments were younger (39 ± 13 years) than patients in 2019 (45 ± 14 years) or 2020 (42 ± 14 years) in-person cohorts (χ2 (2, 696) = 6.8, P < 0.001). Patients attended telehealth appointments at higher rates (73.7%) than in-person visits in 2019 (56.8%) and 2020 (45.6%; χ2 (2, 699) = 26.2, P < 0.001). Attendance did not differ across primary diagnoses. Proximity based on zip code was not associated with attendance.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nPelvic floor physical therapy attendance rates were highest for patients with telehealth visits as compared with in-person visits. Our findings encourage health care providers to continue or begin to offer telehealth visits for pelvic floor physical therapy for the urogynecology patient population.","PeriodicalId":517282,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001510","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Telehealth offers advantages to patients with pelvic floor disorders because they face unique barriers to care; however, attendance of telehealth appointments is unknown. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to examine the attendance of telehealth appointments in urogynecology patients receiving pelvic floor physical therapy as compared with in-person visits before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN We retrospectively collected electronic medical record data from patients engaging in pelvic floor physical therapy from 2019, and pre- and post-COVID-19 in 2020. Information included appointment type, attendance, age, primary diagnoses, insurance status, and zip code. Cohort differences were examined using the χ2 test and analyses of variance. RESULTS Our sample included 359 individuals scheduled for in-person visits in 2019, 57 for telehealth visits in 2020, and 283 for in-person visits in 2020. Patients scheduled for telehealth appointments were younger (39 ± 13 years) than patients in 2019 (45 ± 14 years) or 2020 (42 ± 14 years) in-person cohorts (χ2 (2, 696) = 6.8, P < 0.001). Patients attended telehealth appointments at higher rates (73.7%) than in-person visits in 2019 (56.8%) and 2020 (45.6%; χ2 (2, 699) = 26.2, P < 0.001). Attendance did not differ across primary diagnoses. Proximity based on zip code was not associated with attendance. CONCLUSIONS Pelvic floor physical therapy attendance rates were highest for patients with telehealth visits as compared with in-person visits. Our findings encourage health care providers to continue or begin to offer telehealth visits for pelvic floor physical therapy for the urogynecology patient population.
盆底物理治疗诊所的远程医疗:回顾性队列研究
重要意义远程医疗为盆底障碍患者提供了优势,因为他们面临着独特的护理障碍;然而,远程医疗预约的出席率尚不清楚。研究设计我们回顾性地收集了 2019 年以及 2020 年 COVID-19 之前和之后接受盆底物理治疗的泌尿妇科患者的电子病历数据。信息包括预约类型、就诊情况、年龄、主要诊断、保险状况和邮政编码。使用 χ2 检验和方差分析对队列差异进行了检验。结果我们的样本包括 2019 年预约上门就诊的 359 人、2020 年预约远程医疗就诊的 57 人和 2020 年预约上门就诊的 283 人。与 2019 年(45 ± 14 岁)或 2020 年(42 ± 14 岁)亲自就诊的患者相比,计划接受远程保健预约的患者年龄更小(39 ± 13 岁)(χ2 (2, 696) = 6.8,P < 0.001)。在 2019 年(56.8%)和 2020 年(45.6%;χ2 (2, 699) = 26.2,P < 0.001),患者参加远程保健预约的比例(73.7%)高于亲诊。不同主要诊断的就诊率没有差异。基于邮政编码的就近性与就诊率无关。结论与亲临现场就诊相比,接受远程医疗就诊的患者接受盆底物理治疗的就诊率最高。我们的研究结果鼓励医疗服务提供者继续或开始为泌尿妇科患者提供盆底物理治疗远程保健就诊服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信