30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Rapid Transition to Telehealth and the Digital Divide: Implications for Primary Care Access and Equity in a Post‐COVID Era

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Policy Points

          • Telehealth has many potential advantages during an infectious disease outbreak such as the COVID‐19 pandemic, and the COVID‐19 pandemic has accelerated the shift to telehealth as a prominent care delivery mode.

          • Not all health care providers and patients are equally ready to take part in the telehealth revolution, which raises concerns for health equity during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic.

          • Without proactive efforts to address both patient‐ and provider‐related digital barriers associated with socioeconomic status, the wide‐scale implementation of telehealth amid COVID‐19 may reinforce disparities in health access in already marginalized and underserved communities.

          • To ensure greater telehealth equity, policy changes should address barriers faced overwhelmingly by marginalized patient populations and those who serve them.

          Context

          The COVID‐19 pandemic has catalyzed fundamental shifts across the US health care delivery system, including a rapid transition to telehealth. Telehealth has many potential advantages, including maintaining critical access to care while keeping both patients and providers safe from unnecessary exposure to the coronavirus. However, not all health care providers and patients are equally ready to take part in this digital revolution, which raises concerns for health equity during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic.

          Methods

          The study analyzed data about small primary care practices’ telehealth use and barriers to telehealth use collected from rapid‐response surveys administered by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's Bureau of Equitable Health Systems and New York University from mid‐April through mid‐June 2020 as part of the city's efforts to understand how primary care practices were responding to the COVID‐19 pandemic following New York State's stay‐at‐home order on March 22. We focused on small primary care practices because they represent 40% of primary care providers and are disproportionately located in low‐income, minority or immigrant areas that were more severely impacted by COVID‐19. To examine whether telehealth use and barriers differed based on the socioeconomic characteristics of the communities served by these practices, we used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to stratify respondents as being in high‐SVI or low‐SVI areas. We then characterized respondents’ telehealth use and barriers to adoption by using means and proportions with 95% confidence intervals. In addition to a primary analysis using pooled data across the five waves of the survey, we performed sensitivity analyses using data from respondents who only took one survey, first wave only, and the last two waves only.

          Findings

          While all providers rapidly shifted to telehealth, there were differences based on community characteristics in both the primary mode of telehealth used and the types of barriers experienced by providers. Providers in high‐SVI areas were almost twice as likely as providers in low‐SVI areas to use telephones as their primary telehealth modality (41.7% vs 23.8%; P <.001). The opposite was true for video, which was used as the primary telehealth modality by 18.7% of providers in high‐SVI areas and 33.7% of providers in low‐SVI areas ( P <0.001). Providers in high‐SVI areas also faced more patient‐related barriers and fewer provider‐related barriers than those in low‐SVI areas.

          Conclusions

          Between April and June 2020, telehealth became a prominent mode of primary care delivery in New York City. However, the transition to telehealth did not unfold in the same manner across communities. To ensure greater telehealth equity, policy changes should address barriers faced overwhelmingly by marginalized patient populations and those who serve them.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Virtually Perfect? Telemedicine for Covid-19

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Telehealth for global emergencies: Implications for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

            The current coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is again reminding us of the importance of using telehealth to deliver care, especially as means of reducing the risk of cross-contamination caused by close contact. For telehealth to be effective as part of an emergency response it first needs to become a routinely used part of our health system. Hence, it is time to step back and ask why telehealth is not mainstreamed. In this article, we highlight key requirements for this to occur. Strategies to ensure that telehealth is used regularly in acute, post-acute and emergency situations, alongside conventional service delivery methods, include flexible funding arrangements, training and accrediting our health workforce. Telehealth uptake also requires a significant change in management effort and the redesign of existing models of care. Implementing telehealth proactively rather than reactively is more likely to generate greater benefits in the long-term, and help with the everyday (and emergency) challenges in healthcare.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Evaluating barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide: A systematic review

              Introduction and objective Studies on telemedicine have shown success in reducing the geographical and time obstacles incurred in the receipt of care in traditional modalities with the same or greater effectiveness; however, there are several barriers that need to be addressed in order for telemedicine technology to spread. The aim of this review is to evaluate barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide through the analysis of published work. Methods The authors conducted a systematic literature review by extracting the data from the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PubMed (MEDLINE) research databases. The reviewers in this study analysed 30 articles (nine from CINAHL and 21 from Medline) and identified barriers found in the literature. This review followed the checklist from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009. The reviewers organized the results into one table and five figures that depict the data in different ways, organized by: barrier, country-specific barriers, organization-specific barriers, patient-specific barriers, and medical-staff and programmer-specific barriers. Results The reviewers identified 33 barriers with a frequency of 100 occurrences through the 30 articles. The study identified the issues with technically challenged staff (11%), followed by resistance to change (8%), cost (8%), reimbursement (5%), age of patient (5%), and level of education of patient (5%). All other barriers occurred at or less than 4% of the time. Discussion and conclusions Telemedicine is not yet ubiquitous, and barriers vary widely. The top barriers are technology-specific and could be overcome through training, change-management techniques, and alternating delivery by telemedicine and personal patient-to-provider interaction. The results of this study identify several barriers that could be eliminated by focused policy. Future work should evaluate policy to identify which one to lever to maximize the results.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Ji.chang@nyu.edu
                Journal
                Milbank Q
                Milbank Q
                10.1111/(ISSN)1468-0009
                MILQ
                The Milbank Quarterly
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0887-378X
                1468-0009
                01 June 2021
                : 10.1111/1468-0009.12509
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] New York University School of Global Public Health
                [ 2 ] Rutgers Center for State Health Policy
                [ 3 ] New York University Grossman School of Medicine
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Address Correspondence to: Ji E. Chang, PhD, MS, New York University School of Global Public Health, 719 Broadway, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10003 (email: Ji.chang@ 123456nyu.edu ).

                Article
                MILQ12509
                10.1111/1468-0009.12509
                8209855
                34075622
                a4f87a06-f9ce-4681-93e5-fdff666e75da
                © 2021 Milbank Memorial Fund

                This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 2, Pages: 29, Words: 8698
                Categories
                Original Scholarship
                Original Scholarship
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                corrected-proof
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.2 mode:remove_FC converted:17.06.2021

                Social policy & Welfare
                telehealth,telemedicine,health equity
                Social policy & Welfare
                telehealth, telemedicine, health equity

                Comments

                Comment on this article