患者和提供者对妇科门诊远程医疗使用的看法,该门诊为不同的低收入人群服务。

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-03 DOI:10.1177/1357633X231197965
Amita Kulkarni, Ngozi Monu, Muhammad D Ahsan, Chimsom Orakuwue, Xiaoyue Ma, Auja McDougale, Melissa K Frey, Kevin Holcomb, Evelyn Cantillo, Eloise Chapman-Davis
{"title":"患者和提供者对妇科门诊远程医疗使用的看法,该门诊为不同的低收入人群服务。","authors":"Amita Kulkarni, Ngozi Monu, Muhammad D Ahsan, Chimsom Orakuwue, Xiaoyue Ma, Auja McDougale, Melissa K Frey, Kevin Holcomb, Evelyn Cantillo, Eloise Chapman-Davis","doi":"10.1177/1357633X231197965","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveTo evaluate patient and provider experiences using telemedicine for gynecologic visits among a diverse, low-income population.MethodsPatients attending telemedicine visits at a resident-run gynecology clinic completed a modified Telemedicine Usability Questionnaire and providers completed a survey addressing satisfaction and barriers for each visit. The Telemedicine Usability Questionnaire included six subscales to assess telemedicine usability with 1-5 Likert-scale responses. Statistical analyses included Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Wilcoxon rank sum, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and two-sample <i>t</i>-test.ResultsOf 192 patients enrolled, 157 (82%) completed the surveys (87% video visits, 13% telephone visits). Most patients were ethnic minorities (non-Hispanic White-16%, Hispanic-32%, Black-28%, Asian-10%), median age was 40 years (range 18-69), and 63% reported income under $40,000. The total mean Telemedicine Usability Questionnaire score was 4.3/5. The reliability subscale score (3.72/5) was lower compared to all other subscales (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Older respondents were more likely to find telemedicine unreliable (mean age >44 vs <39, <i>p</i> = 0.02). Without telemedicine, 54% would have traveled ≥1 h to appointments, with 46% spending over $35 on travel, and 27% missing ≥ 1 workday. Patients preferred telemedicine for follow-up rather than initial visits (81% vs 33%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Among providers, residents felt less adequately trained in telemedicine compared to nurse practitioners and fellows (54% vs 46%, <i>p</i> = 0.039).ConclusionLow-income women utilizing telemedicine for outpatient gynecologic care report positive experiences with improved access to healthcare, cost, and time savings compared to in-person visits. Provider experiences were also positive; however, teaching hospitals must evaluate whether trainee providers feel adequately trained to deliver telemedicine visits.</p>","PeriodicalId":50024,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare","volume":" ","pages":"417-423"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient and provider perspectives on telemedicine use in an outpatient gynecologic clinic serving a diverse, low-income population.\",\"authors\":\"Amita Kulkarni, Ngozi Monu, Muhammad D Ahsan, Chimsom Orakuwue, Xiaoyue Ma, Auja McDougale, Melissa K Frey, Kevin Holcomb, Evelyn Cantillo, Eloise Chapman-Davis\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1357633X231197965\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>ObjectiveTo evaluate patient and provider experiences using telemedicine for gynecologic visits among a diverse, low-income population.MethodsPatients attending telemedicine visits at a resident-run gynecology clinic completed a modified Telemedicine Usability Questionnaire and providers completed a survey addressing satisfaction and barriers for each visit. The Telemedicine Usability Questionnaire included six subscales to assess telemedicine usability with 1-5 Likert-scale responses. Statistical analyses included Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Wilcoxon rank sum, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and two-sample <i>t</i>-test.ResultsOf 192 patients enrolled, 157 (82%) completed the surveys (87% video visits, 13% telephone visits). Most patients were ethnic minorities (non-Hispanic White-16%, Hispanic-32%, Black-28%, Asian-10%), median age was 40 years (range 18-69), and 63% reported income under $40,000. The total mean Telemedicine Usability Questionnaire score was 4.3/5. The reliability subscale score (3.72/5) was lower compared to all other subscales (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Older respondents were more likely to find telemedicine unreliable (mean age >44 vs <39, <i>p</i> = 0.02). Without telemedicine, 54% would have traveled ≥1 h to appointments, with 46% spending over $35 on travel, and 27% missing ≥ 1 workday. Patients preferred telemedicine for follow-up rather than initial visits (81% vs 33%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Among providers, residents felt less adequately trained in telemedicine compared to nurse practitioners and fellows (54% vs 46%, <i>p</i> = 0.039).ConclusionLow-income women utilizing telemedicine for outpatient gynecologic care report positive experiences with improved access to healthcare, cost, and time savings compared to in-person visits. Provider experiences were also positive; however, teaching hospitals must evaluate whether trainee providers feel adequately trained to deliver telemedicine visits.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50024,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"417-423\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"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/10.1177/1357633X231197965\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X231197965","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在不同的低收入人群中评估患者和提供者使用远程医疗进行妇科就诊的经验。方法:在居民经营的妇科诊所参加远程医疗就诊的患者完成了一份修改后的远程医疗可用性问卷,提供者完成了一项调查,以解决每次就诊的满意度和障碍。远程医疗可用性问卷包括六个分量表,以1-5 Likert量表的回答来评估远程医疗的可用性。统计分析包括卡方、Fisher精确、Wilcoxon秩和、Wilcoxon-signed秩和两样本t检验。结果:在192名入选患者中,157名(82%)完成了调查(87%的视频访问,13%的电话访问)。大多数患者是少数族裔(非西班牙裔白人16%,西班牙牙裔32%,黑人28%,亚洲人10%),中位年龄为40岁(18-69岁),63%的患者报告收入低于40000美元。远程医疗可用性问卷的平均总分为4.3/5。可靠性分量表得分(3.72/5)低于所有其他分量表(p 44对p = 0.02)。如果没有远程医疗,54%的人会旅行≥1 h预约,46%的人在旅行上花费超过35美元,27%的人失踪 ≥ 1个工作日。患者更喜欢远程医疗进行随访,而不是初次就诊(81%对33%,p p = 0.039)。结论:利用远程医疗进行妇科门诊护理的低收入女性报告称,与亲自就诊相比,她们在获得医疗保健、成本和时间方面都有了积极的体验。提供者的经验也很积极;然而,教学医院必须评估实习提供者是否觉得自己受过足够的培训,可以进行远程医疗访问。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient and provider perspectives on telemedicine use in an outpatient gynecologic clinic serving a diverse, low-income population.

ObjectiveTo evaluate patient and provider experiences using telemedicine for gynecologic visits among a diverse, low-income population.MethodsPatients attending telemedicine visits at a resident-run gynecology clinic completed a modified Telemedicine Usability Questionnaire and providers completed a survey addressing satisfaction and barriers for each visit. The Telemedicine Usability Questionnaire included six subscales to assess telemedicine usability with 1-5 Likert-scale responses. Statistical analyses included Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Wilcoxon rank sum, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and two-sample t-test.ResultsOf 192 patients enrolled, 157 (82%) completed the surveys (87% video visits, 13% telephone visits). Most patients were ethnic minorities (non-Hispanic White-16%, Hispanic-32%, Black-28%, Asian-10%), median age was 40 years (range 18-69), and 63% reported income under $40,000. The total mean Telemedicine Usability Questionnaire score was 4.3/5. The reliability subscale score (3.72/5) was lower compared to all other subscales (p < 0.001). Older respondents were more likely to find telemedicine unreliable (mean age >44 vs <39, p = 0.02). Without telemedicine, 54% would have traveled ≥1 h to appointments, with 46% spending over $35 on travel, and 27% missing ≥ 1 workday. Patients preferred telemedicine for follow-up rather than initial visits (81% vs 33%, p < 0.01). Among providers, residents felt less adequately trained in telemedicine compared to nurse practitioners and fellows (54% vs 46%, p = 0.039).ConclusionLow-income women utilizing telemedicine for outpatient gynecologic care report positive experiences with improved access to healthcare, cost, and time savings compared to in-person visits. Provider experiences were also positive; however, teaching hospitals must evaluate whether trainee providers feel adequately trained to deliver telemedicine visits.

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
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