Demographic and socioeconomic disparities in the hybrid ophthalmology telemedicine model.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-13 DOI:10.1177/1357633X231211353
Manal Dia, Samaneh Davoudi, Nedda Sanayei, Diana C Martin, Melanie M Albrecht, Steven Ness, Manju Subramanian, Nicole Siegel, Xuejing Chen
{"title":"Demographic and socioeconomic disparities in the hybrid ophthalmology telemedicine model.","authors":"Manal Dia, Samaneh Davoudi, Nedda Sanayei, Diana C Martin, Melanie M Albrecht, Steven Ness, Manju Subramanian, Nicole Siegel, Xuejing Chen","doi":"10.1177/1357633X231211353","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ImportanceAs telemedicine use expands, it is important to evaluate demographic and socioeconomic disparities among patients receiving ophthalmic care through new hybrid telemedicine models.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether there are demographic and socioeconomic disparities in the delivery of the hybrid telemedicine model.DesignRetrospective, cross-sectional, case-control analysis of patient encounters from April to December 2020.SettingA single, academic, hospital-based eye clinic in Boston, Massachusetts.MethodsElectronic medical records of all patient encounters from April to December 2020 were reviewed and categorized into hybrid, virtual-only, and standard in-person visits. Patient-level data for all visits were extracted including age, sex, race/ethnicity, primary language, Area Deprivation Index (ADI), insurance type, and marital status. Visit-level data for all hybrid visits were also extracted from the medical record including the visit dates and patient adherence. Demographics for the cohort of patients with at least one no-show visit were compared with demographics for the cohort of patients who only had completed visits. The primary study outcomes were the differences in demographic characteristics between the hybrid visit show and no-show groups. The secondary outcomes included demographic characteristics of patients who did not complete their hybrid visit versus a time-matched cohort of patients who did not complete their standard in-person visit. Continuous variables for patient characteristics were compared with independent samples <i>t</i>-tests and categorical variables were compared using Pearson chi-square tests. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the differences between the cohorts. Variables with missing values other than suppressed ADI values were imputed using multiple imputations by chained equations.ResultsOf a total of 1025 patients who were scheduled for a hybrid visit, 145 (14.1%) patients failed to complete their visit. Primary language and insurance were found to be statistically different between patients who completed and did not complete their hybrid visits. More English speakers and fewer Haitian Creole speakers completed their hybrid visits (<i>p</i> = 0.007) while more patients with private insurance and fewer patients with Medicaid completed their hybrid telemedicine visits (<i>p</i> = 0.026). No associations were found between hybrid telemedicine visit adherence and age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, or ADI. When the 145 patients who failed to complete their hybrid visits were compared to a time-matched cohort of patients who failed to complete their standard in-person visit, we found that patients who missed hybrid visits were similar to those who missed standard in-person visits except for patients insured by Medicare. These patients were more likely to miss a hybrid visit than a standard in-person visit (Odds Ratio 2.199, 95% confidence interval 1.136-4.259, <i>p</i> = 0.019). No associations were found between patient nonadherence with hybrid telemedicine versus with standard in-person visits based on age, sex, primary language, race/ethnicity, marital status, or ADI.ConclusionThe hybrid telemedicine model was associated with insurance and language-based disparities. Patients with non-English primary language and Medicaid recipients were more likely to miss a hybrid visit than their counterparts. Our findings support developing deliberate interventions to ensure hybrid telemedicine care is delivered equitably to all patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":50024,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare","volume":" ","pages":"697-704"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X231211353","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ImportanceAs telemedicine use expands, it is important to evaluate demographic and socioeconomic disparities among patients receiving ophthalmic care through new hybrid telemedicine models.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether there are demographic and socioeconomic disparities in the delivery of the hybrid telemedicine model.DesignRetrospective, cross-sectional, case-control analysis of patient encounters from April to December 2020.SettingA single, academic, hospital-based eye clinic in Boston, Massachusetts.MethodsElectronic medical records of all patient encounters from April to December 2020 were reviewed and categorized into hybrid, virtual-only, and standard in-person visits. Patient-level data for all visits were extracted including age, sex, race/ethnicity, primary language, Area Deprivation Index (ADI), insurance type, and marital status. Visit-level data for all hybrid visits were also extracted from the medical record including the visit dates and patient adherence. Demographics for the cohort of patients with at least one no-show visit were compared with demographics for the cohort of patients who only had completed visits. The primary study outcomes were the differences in demographic characteristics between the hybrid visit show and no-show groups. The secondary outcomes included demographic characteristics of patients who did not complete their hybrid visit versus a time-matched cohort of patients who did not complete their standard in-person visit. Continuous variables for patient characteristics were compared with independent samples t-tests and categorical variables were compared using Pearson chi-square tests. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the differences between the cohorts. Variables with missing values other than suppressed ADI values were imputed using multiple imputations by chained equations.ResultsOf a total of 1025 patients who were scheduled for a hybrid visit, 145 (14.1%) patients failed to complete their visit. Primary language and insurance were found to be statistically different between patients who completed and did not complete their hybrid visits. More English speakers and fewer Haitian Creole speakers completed their hybrid visits (p = 0.007) while more patients with private insurance and fewer patients with Medicaid completed their hybrid telemedicine visits (p = 0.026). No associations were found between hybrid telemedicine visit adherence and age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, or ADI. When the 145 patients who failed to complete their hybrid visits were compared to a time-matched cohort of patients who failed to complete their standard in-person visit, we found that patients who missed hybrid visits were similar to those who missed standard in-person visits except for patients insured by Medicare. These patients were more likely to miss a hybrid visit than a standard in-person visit (Odds Ratio 2.199, 95% confidence interval 1.136-4.259, p = 0.019). No associations were found between patient nonadherence with hybrid telemedicine versus with standard in-person visits based on age, sex, primary language, race/ethnicity, marital status, or ADI.ConclusionThe hybrid telemedicine model was associated with insurance and language-based disparities. Patients with non-English primary language and Medicaid recipients were more likely to miss a hybrid visit than their counterparts. Our findings support developing deliberate interventions to ensure hybrid telemedicine care is delivered equitably to all patients.

混合眼科远程医疗模式中的人口统计学和社会经济差异。
重要性:随着远程医疗使用的扩大,通过新的混合远程医疗模式评估接受眼科护理的患者的人口统计学和社会经济差异是很重要的。目的:评价混合远程医疗模式的提供是否存在人口和社会经济差异。设计:对2020年4月至12月的患者进行回顾性、横断面、病例对照分析。环境:位于马萨诸塞州波士顿的一个单一的,学术的,医院为基础的眼科诊所。方法:回顾2020年4月至12月所有患者就诊的电子病历,并将其分为混合型、纯虚拟型和标准面对面就诊。提取所有就诊的患者水平数据,包括年龄、性别、种族/民族、主要语言、区域剥夺指数(ADI)、保险类型和婚姻状况。所有混合访问的访问级别数据也从医疗记录中提取,包括访问日期和患者依从性。将至少有一次未到医院就诊的患者队列的人口统计数据与仅完成就诊的患者队列的人口统计数据进行比较。主要的研究结果是就诊和不就诊的混合组在人口学特征上的差异。次要结果包括未完成混合访问的患者与未完成标准亲自访问的患者时间匹配队列的人口统计学特征。患者特征的连续变量比较采用独立样本t检验,分类变量比较采用Pearson卡方检验。采用多变量logistic回归来检验队列之间的差异。除抑制的ADI值外,其他缺失值的变量通过链式方程进行多次插值。结果:在1025名计划进行混合访问的患者中,145名(14.1%)患者未能完成访问。在完成和未完成混合就诊的患者之间,发现主要语言和保险有统计学差异。更多说英语的人和更少说海地克里奥尔语的人完成了他们的混合就诊(p = 0.007),而更多的有私人保险的病人和更少的有医疗补助的病人完成了他们的混合远程医疗就诊(p = 0.026)。没有发现混合远程医疗就诊依从性与年龄、性别、种族/民族、婚姻状况或ADI之间的关联。当145名未能完成混合就诊的患者与时间匹配的未能完成标准亲自就诊的患者进行比较时,我们发现,除了医疗保险保险的患者外,错过混合就诊的患者与错过标准亲自就诊的患者相似。这些患者比标准的亲自就诊更容易错过混合就诊(优势比2.199,95%可信区间1.136-4.259,p = 0.019)。不坚持混合远程医疗的患者与基于年龄、性别、主要语言、种族/民族、婚姻状况或ADI的标准亲自就诊的患者之间没有发现关联。结论:混合远程医疗模式存在保险差异和语言差异。非英语为主语言的患者和医疗补助接受者比他们的同行更有可能错过混合就诊。我们的研究结果支持制定深思熟虑的干预措施,以确保混合远程医疗护理公平地提供给所有患者。
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
CiteScore
14.10
自引率
10.60%
发文量
174
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare provides excellent peer reviewed coverage of developments in telemedicine and e-health and is now widely recognised as the leading journal in its field. Contributions from around the world provide a unique perspective on how different countries and health systems are using new technology in health care. Sections within the journal include technology updates, editorials, original articles, research tutorials, educational material, review articles and reports from various telemedicine organisations. A subscription to this journal will help you to stay up-to-date in this fast moving and growing area of medicine.
×
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