Young Black and White adults prefer in-person to telehealth for primary care visits and group health promotion programs.

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Lyubov Gavrilova, Mellisa C Watson, Yasmine M Eshera, Angela L Ridgel, Joel W Hughes
{"title":"Young Black and White adults prefer in-person to telehealth for primary care visits and group health promotion programs.","authors":"Lyubov Gavrilova, Mellisa C Watson, Yasmine M Eshera, Angela L Ridgel, Joel W Hughes","doi":"10.1093/tbm/ibae064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Telehealth utilization has increased since the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, reducing barriers to healthcare and, potentially, reducing participation in group health-promotion interventions. However, preferences for telehealth versus in-person formats have not been established. To examine preferences for telehealth and in-person format for primary care and group health-promotion interventions among Black and White women and men aged 20-39. We hypothesized that respondents would report a higher preference for telehealth than in-person appointments. This cross-sectional survey study recruited participants to answer questions about access to technology and preferences for telehealth and in-person formats of primary care and group health promotion. Respondents (n = 404) included similar proportions of White women (24.3%, 26.4 ± 4.3 years), Black women (25.0%, 29.0 ± 6.1 years), White men (25.9%, 32.8 ± 4.5 years), and Black men (24.8%, 30.6 ± 5.2 years). About 98.5% reported having a smartphone, and 80.4% had access to a computer with a camera. Preference ratings were higher for in-person visits, compared to telehealth visits, for both primary care (M = 3.86 ± 1.13 vs. M = 2.87 ± 1.18) and group health promotion (M = 3.72 ± 1.12 vs. M = 3.04 ± 1.20) F's(1,400) > 59.0, P's < .001. Most young adults have access to technology, supporting the feasibility of telehealth interventions. However, telehealth preference ratings were lower than in-person appointments. Preferences for delivery formats should be considered when designing behavioral interventions to promote health and prevent disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":48679,"journal":{"name":"Translational Behavioral Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"738-743"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibae064","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Telehealth utilization has increased since the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, reducing barriers to healthcare and, potentially, reducing participation in group health-promotion interventions. However, preferences for telehealth versus in-person formats have not been established. To examine preferences for telehealth and in-person format for primary care and group health-promotion interventions among Black and White women and men aged 20-39. We hypothesized that respondents would report a higher preference for telehealth than in-person appointments. This cross-sectional survey study recruited participants to answer questions about access to technology and preferences for telehealth and in-person formats of primary care and group health promotion. Respondents (n = 404) included similar proportions of White women (24.3%, 26.4 ± 4.3 years), Black women (25.0%, 29.0 ± 6.1 years), White men (25.9%, 32.8 ± 4.5 years), and Black men (24.8%, 30.6 ± 5.2 years). About 98.5% reported having a smartphone, and 80.4% had access to a computer with a camera. Preference ratings were higher for in-person visits, compared to telehealth visits, for both primary care (M = 3.86 ± 1.13 vs. M = 2.87 ± 1.18) and group health promotion (M = 3.72 ± 1.12 vs. M = 3.04 ± 1.20) F's(1,400) > 59.0, P's < .001. Most young adults have access to technology, supporting the feasibility of telehealth interventions. However, telehealth preference ratings were lower than in-person appointments. Preferences for delivery formats should be considered when designing behavioral interventions to promote health and prevent disease.

年轻的黑人和白人成年人在接受初级保健就诊和团体健康促进计划时,更愿意选择面对面就诊而不是远程保健。
自 2019 年冠状病毒疾病大流行以来,远程保健的使用率有所上升,减少了获得医疗保健的障碍,并有可能减少参与团体健康促进干预措施的人数。然而,人们对远程保健与面对面形式的偏好尚未确定。为了研究 20-39 岁黑人和白人男女对初级保健和团体健康促进干预的远程保健和面对面形式的偏好。我们假设,受访者对远程医疗的偏好程度会高于面对面预约。这项横断面调查研究招募了参与者,让他们回答有关技术使用情况以及对初级保健和团体健康促进的远程保健和面对面形式的偏好的问题。受访者(n = 404)包括相似比例的白人女性(24.3%,26.4 ± 4.3 岁)、黑人女性(25.0%,29.0 ± 6.1 岁)、白人男性(25.9%,32.8 ± 4.5 岁)和黑人男性(24.8%,30.6 ± 5.2 岁)。约 98.5% 的人表示拥有智能手机,80.4% 的人可以使用带摄像头的电脑。在初级保健(M = 3.86 ± 1.13 vs. M = 2.87 ± 1.18)和团体健康促进(M = 3.72 ± 1.12 vs. M = 3.04 ± 1.20)方面,与远程保健访问相比,亲自访问的偏好评分更高。
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
Translational Behavioral Medicine
Translational Behavioral Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: Translational Behavioral Medicine publishes content that engages, informs, and catalyzes dialogue about behavioral medicine among the research, practice, and policy communities. TBM began receiving an Impact Factor in 2015 and currently holds an Impact Factor of 2.989. TBM is one of two journals published by the Society of Behavioral Medicine. The Society of Behavioral Medicine is a multidisciplinary organization of clinicians, educators, and scientists dedicated to promoting the study of the interactions of behavior with biology and the environment, and then applying that knowledge to improve the health and well-being of individuals, families, communities, and populations.
×
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