神经科门诊远程医疗利用率的差异。

IF 2.3 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurology. Clinical practice Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200407
Marisa Patryce McGinley, Tucker Harvey, Daniel Ontaneda, Allison L Weathers, Bryan R Cobb, Anisha Patel
{"title":"神经科门诊远程医疗利用率的差异。","authors":"Marisa Patryce McGinley, Tucker Harvey, Daniel Ontaneda, Allison L Weathers, Bryan R Cobb, Anisha Patel","doi":"10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>To characterize outpatient telemedicine utilization for neurologic conditions and identify potential disparities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All outpatient visits conducted by neurology clinicians at an academic medical health care system for patients aged 18 years or older from January 2019 to July 2022 were included. All telemedicine visits were synchronous audio-visual. Patients completing in-person visits alone were compared with patients completing telemedicine visits. Utilization of telemedicine was compared across 3 time frames: prepandemic (before March 2020), early-pandemic (March-June 2020), and late-pandemic (July 2020-July 2022). Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to evaluate whether the odds of a visit being telemedicine vs in-person differed based on the time frame and to predict likelihood of telemedicine vs in-person visit in late pandemic time frame.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 242,273 patients (mean age 55.9 years, 58.2% female, 81.9% White, 12.5% Black, 3.4% Hispanic, 39.2% Medicare) completed 752,174 visits during the study time frame. There was a significant difference in telemedicine utilization between the time frames, with the highest utilization being in the early pandemic (<i>p</i> 0.01). In the late pandemic time frame, odds of a telemedicine visit were significantly lower for individuals who were older (odds ratio [OR] 0.97), Black (OR 0.84), Hispanic (OR 0.70), a higher Area Deprivation Index (20%-40%: OR 0.85, 40%-60%: OR 0.80, 60%-80%: OR 0.78, ≥80%: OR 0.65), with nonprivate insurance (Medicaid OR 0.78; Medicare OR 0.84; self-pay OR 0.60), and non-English preferred language (OR 0.61) (<i>p</i> < 0.01 for all). Odds of a telemedicine visit were significantly higher for individuals who were female (OR 1.25) and lived outside of the greater Cleveland area (other Ohio OR 2.33; out of state OR 3.32) (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Visits completed by rural patients did not differ significantly from metropolitan patients (OR 0.95, <i>p</i> = 0.09).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Disparities in telemedicine persist with lower use in individuals who were older, Black, Hispanic, non-English preferred language, and lower socioeconomic status. These disparities improved initially but were accentuated later in the pandemic. The equal utilization of telemedicine by rural and urban patients in this study suggests the potential of telemedicine to improve access disparities for rural patients. The implementation of equitable health care delivery will require a better understanding of barriers, preferences, and legislation needed to support equitable telemedicine access.</p>","PeriodicalId":19136,"journal":{"name":"Neurology. Clinical practice","volume":"15 1","pages":"e200407"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11581764/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disparities in Utilization of Outpatient Telemedicine for Neurologic Care.\",\"authors\":\"Marisa Patryce McGinley, Tucker Harvey, Daniel Ontaneda, Allison L Weathers, Bryan R Cobb, Anisha Patel\",\"doi\":\"10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200407\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>To characterize outpatient telemedicine utilization for neurologic conditions and identify potential disparities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All outpatient visits conducted by neurology clinicians at an academic medical health care system for patients aged 18 years or older from January 2019 to July 2022 were included. All telemedicine visits were synchronous audio-visual. Patients completing in-person visits alone were compared with patients completing telemedicine visits. Utilization of telemedicine was compared across 3 time frames: prepandemic (before March 2020), early-pandemic (March-June 2020), and late-pandemic (July 2020-July 2022). Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to evaluate whether the odds of a visit being telemedicine vs in-person differed based on the time frame and to predict likelihood of telemedicine vs in-person visit in late pandemic time frame.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 242,273 patients (mean age 55.9 years, 58.2% female, 81.9% White, 12.5% Black, 3.4% Hispanic, 39.2% Medicare) completed 752,174 visits during the study time frame. There was a significant difference in telemedicine utilization between the time frames, with the highest utilization being in the early pandemic (<i>p</i> 0.01). In the late pandemic time frame, odds of a telemedicine visit were significantly lower for individuals who were older (odds ratio [OR] 0.97), Black (OR 0.84), Hispanic (OR 0.70), a higher Area Deprivation Index (20%-40%: OR 0.85, 40%-60%: OR 0.80, 60%-80%: OR 0.78, ≥80%: OR 0.65), with nonprivate insurance (Medicaid OR 0.78; Medicare OR 0.84; self-pay OR 0.60), and non-English preferred language (OR 0.61) (<i>p</i> < 0.01 for all). Odds of a telemedicine visit were significantly higher for individuals who were female (OR 1.25) and lived outside of the greater Cleveland area (other Ohio OR 2.33; out of state OR 3.32) (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Visits completed by rural patients did not differ significantly from metropolitan patients (OR 0.95, <i>p</i> = 0.09).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Disparities in telemedicine persist with lower use in individuals who were older, Black, Hispanic, non-English preferred language, and lower socioeconomic status. These disparities improved initially but were accentuated later in the pandemic. The equal utilization of telemedicine by rural and urban patients in this study suggests the potential of telemedicine to improve access disparities for rural patients. The implementation of equitable health care delivery will require a better understanding of barriers, preferences, and legislation needed to support equitable telemedicine access.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurology. Clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"e200407\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11581764/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurology. Clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200407\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology. Clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200407","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:了解神经病学门诊远程医疗的使用情况,并确定潜在的差异:描述神经病学门诊远程医疗的使用情况,并确定潜在的差异:纳入学术医疗保健系统的神经科临床医生在 2019 年 1 月至 2022 年 7 月期间为 18 岁或以上患者进行的所有门诊就诊。所有远程医疗就诊均为同步视听。将单独完成现场就诊的患者与完成远程医疗就诊的患者进行了比较。在三个时间段内对远程医疗的使用情况进行了比较:流行前(2020 年 3 月前)、流行初期(2020 年 3 月至 6 月)和流行后期(2020 年 7 月至 2022 年 7 月)。使用广义线性混合效应模型来评估远程医疗与面对面就诊的几率是否因时间框架而异,并预测大流行后期远程医疗与面对面就诊的可能性:在研究期间,共有 242 273 名患者(平均年龄 55.9 岁,58.2% 为女性,81.9% 为白人,12.5% 为黑人,3.4% 为西班牙裔,39.2% 为医疗保险患者)完成了 752 174 次就诊。不同时间段的远程医疗使用率存在明显差异,大流行初期的使用率最高(P 0.01)。在大流行后期,年龄较大(几率比 [OR] 0.97)、黑人(OR 0.84)、西班牙裔(OR 0.70)、地区贫困指数较高(20%-40%:OR 0.85,40%-60%:OR 0.80,60%-80%:OR 0.78,≥80%:OR 0.65),有非私人保险(医疗补助 OR 0.78;医疗保险 OR 0.84;自费 OR 0.60),以及非英语首选语言(OR 0.61)(所有数据的 P <0.01)。女性(OR 1.25)和居住在大克利夫兰地区以外(俄亥俄州其他地区 OR 2.33;州外 OR 3.32)的患者接受远程医疗就诊的几率明显更高(P < 0.01)。农村患者完成的就诊次数与城市患者没有显著差异(OR 0.95,P = 0.09):讨论:远程医疗方面的差异依然存在,年龄较大、黑人、西班牙裔、非英语首选语言和社会经济地位较低的人使用率较低。这些差异在最初有所改善,但在大流行后期更加突出。在这项研究中,农村和城市患者对远程医疗的使用率相当,这表明远程医疗有可能改善农村患者在就医方面的差距。要实现公平的医疗保健服务,就需要更好地了解障碍、偏好以及支持公平使用远程医疗所需的立法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Disparities in Utilization of Outpatient Telemedicine for Neurologic Care.

Background and objectives: To characterize outpatient telemedicine utilization for neurologic conditions and identify potential disparities.

Methods: All outpatient visits conducted by neurology clinicians at an academic medical health care system for patients aged 18 years or older from January 2019 to July 2022 were included. All telemedicine visits were synchronous audio-visual. Patients completing in-person visits alone were compared with patients completing telemedicine visits. Utilization of telemedicine was compared across 3 time frames: prepandemic (before March 2020), early-pandemic (March-June 2020), and late-pandemic (July 2020-July 2022). Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to evaluate whether the odds of a visit being telemedicine vs in-person differed based on the time frame and to predict likelihood of telemedicine vs in-person visit in late pandemic time frame.

Results: In total, 242,273 patients (mean age 55.9 years, 58.2% female, 81.9% White, 12.5% Black, 3.4% Hispanic, 39.2% Medicare) completed 752,174 visits during the study time frame. There was a significant difference in telemedicine utilization between the time frames, with the highest utilization being in the early pandemic (p 0.01). In the late pandemic time frame, odds of a telemedicine visit were significantly lower for individuals who were older (odds ratio [OR] 0.97), Black (OR 0.84), Hispanic (OR 0.70), a higher Area Deprivation Index (20%-40%: OR 0.85, 40%-60%: OR 0.80, 60%-80%: OR 0.78, ≥80%: OR 0.65), with nonprivate insurance (Medicaid OR 0.78; Medicare OR 0.84; self-pay OR 0.60), and non-English preferred language (OR 0.61) (p < 0.01 for all). Odds of a telemedicine visit were significantly higher for individuals who were female (OR 1.25) and lived outside of the greater Cleveland area (other Ohio OR 2.33; out of state OR 3.32) (p < 0.01). Visits completed by rural patients did not differ significantly from metropolitan patients (OR 0.95, p = 0.09).

Discussion: Disparities in telemedicine persist with lower use in individuals who were older, Black, Hispanic, non-English preferred language, and lower socioeconomic status. These disparities improved initially but were accentuated later in the pandemic. The equal utilization of telemedicine by rural and urban patients in this study suggests the potential of telemedicine to improve access disparities for rural patients. The implementation of equitable health care delivery will require a better understanding of barriers, preferences, and legislation needed to support equitable telemedicine access.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neurology. Clinical practice
Neurology. Clinical practice CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Neurology® Genetics is an online open access journal publishing peer-reviewed reports in the field of neurogenetics. The journal publishes original articles in all areas of neurogenetics including rare and common genetic variations, genotype-phenotype correlations, outlier phenotypes as a result of mutations in known disease genes, and genetic variations with a putative link to diseases. Articles include studies reporting on genetic disease risk, pharmacogenomics, and results of gene-based clinical trials (viral, ASO, etc.). Genetically engineered model systems are not a primary focus of Neurology® Genetics, but studies using model systems for treatment trials, including well-powered studies reporting negative results, are welcome.
×
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