Video versus audio telehealth in safety net clinic patients: Changes by rurality and time.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Annie E Larson, Kurt C Stange, John Heintzman, Whitney E Zahnd, Melinda M Davis, S Marie Harvey
{"title":"Video versus audio telehealth in safety net clinic patients: Changes by rurality and time.","authors":"Annie E Larson, Kurt C Stange, John Heintzman, Whitney E Zahnd, Melinda M Davis, S Marie Harvey","doi":"10.1111/jrh.12887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Understanding the mix of video versus audio telehealth modality is critical to informing care for low-income safety net clinic patients. Our study examined whether telehealth modality and continued use of telehealth varied by rurality and whether that changed over time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Encounters from adults in the OCHIN national network of primary care safety net clinics were identified by encounter type (in-person vs telehealth) and telehealth modality (video vs audio) from 4/1/2021 to 3/31/2023. Our main outcome was an interaction between patient rurality (defined using Rural Urban Commuting Area codes) and time. Linear probability models with clinic fixed effects were used to estimate predicted probabilities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The predicted probability of a telehealth visit decreased from 37.9% to 24.7% among urban patients (P <.001) and remained stable (29.5%-29.8%; P = .82) among patients in small rural areas. By March 2023, telehealth use among patients in small rural areas was 5.1 percentage points higher than among urban patients (P = .02). The predicted probability of an audio-only visit ranged from 63.5% to 70.5% for patients across all levels of rurality, but no significant differences by rurality or time were found.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Safety net clinic patients were more likely to use audio-only than video telehealth visits. Telehealth in urban and large rural areas decreased since the first year of the pandemic. By the end of the study, patients in small rural communities used significantly more telehealth than urban patients. Elimination of reimbursement for audio telehealth visits may exacerbate existing health care inequities.</p>","PeriodicalId":50060,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12887","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Understanding the mix of video versus audio telehealth modality is critical to informing care for low-income safety net clinic patients. Our study examined whether telehealth modality and continued use of telehealth varied by rurality and whether that changed over time.

Methods: Encounters from adults in the OCHIN national network of primary care safety net clinics were identified by encounter type (in-person vs telehealth) and telehealth modality (video vs audio) from 4/1/2021 to 3/31/2023. Our main outcome was an interaction between patient rurality (defined using Rural Urban Commuting Area codes) and time. Linear probability models with clinic fixed effects were used to estimate predicted probabilities.

Results: The predicted probability of a telehealth visit decreased from 37.9% to 24.7% among urban patients (P <.001) and remained stable (29.5%-29.8%; P = .82) among patients in small rural areas. By March 2023, telehealth use among patients in small rural areas was 5.1 percentage points higher than among urban patients (P = .02). The predicted probability of an audio-only visit ranged from 63.5% to 70.5% for patients across all levels of rurality, but no significant differences by rurality or time were found.

Conclusions: Safety net clinic patients were more likely to use audio-only than video telehealth visits. Telehealth in urban and large rural areas decreased since the first year of the pandemic. By the end of the study, patients in small rural communities used significantly more telehealth than urban patients. Elimination of reimbursement for audio telehealth visits may exacerbate existing health care inequities.

安全网诊所病人的视频与音频远程保健:不同地区和不同时间的变化。
背景:了解视频与音频远程医疗模式的组合对于为低收入安全网诊所患者提供医疗服务至关重要。我们的研究考察了远程医疗模式和远程医疗的持续使用是否因地区而异,以及这种情况是否会随着时间的推移而发生变化:方法:从 2021 年 1 月 4 日至 2023 年 3 月 31 日,我们按相遇类型(面对面与远程保健)和远程保健方式(视频与音频)对 OCHIN 全国初级保健安全网诊所网络中的成人相遇进行了识别。我们的主要结果是患者的农村地区(使用农村城市通勤区代码定义)与时间之间的交互作用。使用带有诊所固定效应的线性概率模型来估算预测概率:结果:在城市患者中,远程医疗就诊的预测概率从 37.9% 下降到 24.7%(P安全网诊所患者使用纯音频远程保健就诊的可能性高于视频远程保健就诊。自大流行的第一年起,城市和大型农村地区的远程保健服务有所减少。研究结束时,小型农村社区患者使用远程保健的比例明显高于城市患者。取消对音频远程保健就诊的报销可能会加剧现有的医疗保健不平等。
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
Journal of Rural Health
Journal of Rural Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rural Health, a quarterly journal published by the NRHA, offers a variety of original research relevant and important to rural health. Some examples include evaluations, case studies, and analyses related to health status and behavior, as well as to health work force, policy and access issues. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are welcome. Highest priority is given to manuscripts that reflect scholarly quality, demonstrate methodological rigor, and emphasize practical implications. The journal also publishes articles with an international rural health perspective, commentaries, book reviews and letters.
×
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