Healthcare Providers’ Experience Using Telehealth During the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Predominantly Rural Patient Base: An Online Survey

Acceptance of Telemedicine by Specialists and General Practitioners in Cardiology Care: Cross-Sectional Survey Study

BACKGROUND

In the coming years, telemedicine will play a key role in health care. Especially in rural areas with weak infrastructure, telemedicine could be crucial to providing adequate and personalized medical care.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the acceptance and preferences of telemedicine among cardiologists, internists, and general practitioners. In addition, we aimed to identify knowledge, explore factors that influence the decision to adopt or reject this technology, and create starting points for demand-oriented further research.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based survey between May 2021 and February 2022. The 34-item questionnaire covered a wide range of questions regarding knowledge, acceptance, and use of telemedicine in cardiology care. Participants (cardiologists, internists, and general practitioners) were contacted through their professional email addresses, through a QR code published in a regional health journal, and through X (formerly known as Twitter). After exclusion of questionnaires with missed values, multidimensional scaling and k-means clustering were performed. Participants were divided into 3 clusters (C1, C2, and C3) based on their attitudes toward telecardiology. C1 uses telemedicine for personal health and clinical practice; C2 shows reluctance; C3 uses telemedicine mainly clinically.

RESULTS

We contacted 929 physicians. Of those 12.1% (112/929) completed the questionnaires. Participants were 56% male (54/97), 29% female (28/97), and 2% (2/97) diverse (median age 50 years). About 16% (18/112) of the respondents currently use telemedicine daily, 14.3% (16/112) 3-4 times a week, and 43% (48/112) did not use telemedicine at all. Overall, 35.1% (34/97) rated their knowledge of telemedicine as very good or good. Most of the respondents replied that telemedicine could support cardiology care in monitoring of blood pressure and electrocardiograms (57/97, 58.8%, both), consultation (57/97, 58.8%), and extending follow-up time (59/97, 60.8%). Reported barriers to implementation were mostly administration (26/97, 26.8%), inadequate reimbursement (25/97, 25.8%), and the purchase of technology equipment (23/97, 23.7%). Attitudes toward telemedicine in clinical practice were closely related to the number of patients being treated per annual quarter: C3 (median 1350, IQR 1000-1500) versus C1 (median 750, IQR 300-1200) and C2 (median 500, IQR 105-825). The differences between clinical caseloads of C1-C3 members were significant: C1 versus C2 (P=.03), C1 versus C3 (P=.02), and C2 versus C3 (P<.001). Most participants (87/112, 77.7%) would like to expand telemedicine approaches in the future. In the field of cardiology, the participants reported a high suitability of telemedicine. The willingness to train in telemedicine is high to very high for > 50% of the participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate generally moderate use but positive attitudes toward telemedicine among participating physicians with a higher clinical caseload. The lack of a structural framework seems to be a barrier to the effective implementation of telecardiology.

Patients' and Clinicians' Experiences with In-person, Video, and Phone Modalities for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition that requires regular visits and care continuity. Telehealth implementation has created multiple visit modalities for OUD care. There is limited knowledge of patients' and clinicians' perceptions and experiences related to multi-modality care and when different modalities might be best employed.

OBJECTIVE

To identify patients' and clinicians' experiences with multiple visit modalities for OUD treatment in primary care.

DESIGN

Comparative case study, using video- and telephone-based semi-structured interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients being treated for OUD (n = 19) and clinicians who provided OUD care (n = 15) from two primary care clinics within the same healthcare system.

APPROACH

Using an inductive approach, interviews were analyzed to identify patients' and clinicians' experiences with receiving/delivering OUD care via different visit modalities. Clinicians' and patients' experiences were compared using a group analytical process.

KEY RESULTS

Patients and clinicians valued having multiple modalities available for care, with flexibility identified as a key benefit. Patients highlighted the decreased burden of travel and less social anxiety with telehealth visits. Similarly, clinicians reported that telehealth decreased medical intrusion into the lives of patients stable in recovery. Patients and clinicians saw the value of in-person visits when establishing care and for patients needing additional support. In-person visits allowed the ability to conduct urine drug testing, and to foster relationships and trust building, which were more difficult, but not impossible via a telehealth visit. Patients preferred telephone over video visits, as these were more private and more convenient. Clinicians identified benefits of video, including being able to both hear and see the patient, but often deferred to patient preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerations for utilization of visit modalities for OUD care were identified based on patients' needs and preferences, which often changed over the course of treatment. Continued research is needed determine how visit modalities impact patient outcomes.