Current Status and Challenges of the Dissemination of Telemedicine in Japan After the Start of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Live two-way video versus face-to-face treatment for depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder: A 24-week randomized controlled trial

AIM

Live two-way video, easily accessible from home via smartphones and other devices, is becoming a new way of providing psychiatric treatment. However, lack of evidence for real-world clinical setting effectiveness hampers its approval by medical insurance in some countries. Here, we conducted the first large-scale pragmatic, randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of long-term treatment for multiple psychiatric disorders via two-way video using smartphones and other devices, which are currently the primary means of telecommunication.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial compared two-way video versus face-to-face treatment for depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder in the subacute/maintenance phase during a 24-week period. Adult patients with the above-mentioned disorders were allocated to either a two-way video group (≥50% video sessions) or a face-to-face group (100% in-person sessions) and received standard treatment covered by public medical insurance. The primary outcome was the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Mental Component Summary (SF-36 MCS) score. Secondary outcomes included all-cause discontinuation, working alliance, adverse events, and the severity rating scales for each disorder.

RESULTS

A total of 199 patients participated in this study. After 24 weeks of treatment, two-way video treatment was found to be noninferior to face-to-face treatment regarding SF-36 MCS score (48.50 vs 46.68, respectively; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding most secondary end points, including all-cause discontinuation, treatment efficacy, and satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Two-way video treatment using smartphones and other devices, was noninferior to face-to-face treatment in real-world clinical settings. Modern telemedicine, easily accessible from home, can be used as a form of health care.

Quantifying Urban-Rural Inequality in Access to Telemedicine: Descriptive Analysis of Telemedicine Uses and Providers in Japan Under COVID-19

Background: COVID-19 has reportedly resulted in disparities in the use of telemedicine due to several socioeconomic factors. While telemedicine was developed to overcome geographical distance, under COVID-19 telemedicine conversely might have deepened the urban-rural telemedicine divide. Especially in Japan, the authority has virtually regulated distant telemedicine use, which favored telemedicine providers who are located in close proximity to patients. This study aimed to quantify the urban-rural disparity in access to telemedicine and investigate heterogeneity between devices (phone and video visits). Methods: We used two nationally comprehensive data sources in Japan. One was a municipality-level telemedicine provider database. Municipality-provider-level analysis intended to measure the uneven distribution of telemedicine providers compared to usual health care providers as well as the difference among clinical departments. The second source was prefecture-level telemedicine utilization data. Prefecture-utilization-level analysis aimed to quantify how the use of telemedicine converged in urban areas. We investigated the heterogeneity between types of devices and time periods. To measure inequality, this study used the Lorenz Curve and Gini coefficients. Ethical review was not required. Results: The data included 16,927 providers (14,111 clinics and 2,816 hospitals) and 88,952 first visits throughout Japan. The main findings were the geographically converged distribution of telemedicine providers compared with overall providers who were not limited to telemedicine and, possibly as a result of it, the geographically unequal utilization of telemedicine compared with in-person visits. Furthermore, video visits were more unequally utilized than phone visits, let alone in-person visits. The disparity was not resolved over time, which implied a systematic cause. Conclusion: Using comprehensive nationwide data, this study revealed geographical inequality relating to access to telemedicine under the COVID-19 special deregulation in Japan. While telemedicine initially aimed to provide access to care for people in rural areas, several factors, including the digital divide, COVID-19, and the Japanese policy, paradoxically could have caused this disparity.

Research note changes in the number of outpatient visits in Japan during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the change in the number of outpatient visits in Japan since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, using data on the outpatient claims submitted by medical institutions to insurers in 2019 and 2020, from the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Check-ups. We calculated the total number of outpatient visits, and number of visits for individual diseases according to the International Classification of Diseases-10 codes on the claim form.

RESULTS

The number of outpatient visits per million people decreased by 9.98% in 2020 compared to 2019. Of the diseases included in the analysis, 71 showed a decrease in the number of visits by ≥ 1%. There were significant decreases in the number of visits related to infectious diseases (influenza, acute bronchitis, and acute laryngitis, etc.), and chronic diseases (hemorrhoids, cystic kidney disease, dyspepsia, and chronic sinusitis, etc.). The observed decreased rate of outpatient visit might have been due to, a decrease in the incidence of disease, a decreased frequency of visit by patients with the disease, or both. Our analysis method using actual health insurance claim data can be applied worldwide, where researchers have access to national information on health insurance claims.