Explore the vast range of titles available.

Electronic visits (e-visits) involve asynchronous communication between clinicians and patients through a secure web-based platform, such as a patient portal, to elicit symptoms and determine a diagnosis and treatment plan. E-visits are now reimbursable through Medicare due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The state of evidence regarding e-visits, such as the impact on clinical outcomes and health care delivery, is unclear. To address this gap, we examine how e-visits have impacted clinical outcomes and health care quality, access, utilization, and costs. We conducted a systematic review; MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from January 2000 through October 2020 for peer-reviewed studies that assessed e-visits' impacts on clinical and health care delivery outcomes. Out of 1859 papers, 19 met the inclusion criteria. E-visit usage was associated with improved or comparable clinical outcomes, especially for chronic disease management (eg, diabetes care, blood pressure management). The impact on quality of care varied across conditions. Quality of care was equivalent or better for chronic conditions, but variable quality was observed in infection management (eg, appropriate antibiotic prescribing). Similarly, the impact on health care utilization varied across conditions (eg, lower utilization for dermatology but mixed impact in primary care). Health care costs were lower for e-visits than those for in-person visits for a wide range of conditions (eg, dermatology and acute visits). No studies examined the impact of e-visits on health care access. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions about effectiveness or impact on care delivery from the studies that were included because many used observational designs. Overall, the evidence suggests e-visits may provide clinical outcomes that are comparable to those provided by in-person care and reduce health care costs for certain health care conditions. At the same time, there is mixed evidence on health care quality, especially regarding infection management (eg, sinusitis, urinary tract infections, conjunctivitis). Further studies are needed to test implementation strategies that might improve delivery (eg, clinical decision support for antibiotic prescribing) and to assess which conditions can be managed via e-visits.

Background Accumulating evidence suggests that interventions to de-implement low-value services are urgently needed. While medical societies and educational campaigns such as Choosing Wisely have developed several guidelines and recommendations pertaining to low-value care, little is known about interventions that exist to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. We conducted this review to summarize the literature on interventions to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. Methods We systematically reviewed the published literature in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus from 1 January 1990 to 4 March 2021. We screened the retrieved abstracts for eligibility against inclusion criteria and conducted a full-text review of all eligible studies on de-implementation interventions in cancer care delivery. We used the framework analysis approach to summarize included studies’ key characteristics including design, type of cancer, outcome(s), objective(s), de-implementation interventions description, and determinants of the de-implementation interventions. To extract the data, pairs of authors placed text from included articles into the appropriate cells within our framework. We analyzed extracted data from each cell to describe the studies and findings of de-implementation interventions aiming to reduce low-value cancer care. Results Out of 2794 studies, 12 met our inclusion criteria. The studies covered several cancer types, including prostate cancer ( n = 5), gastrointestinal cancer ( n = 3), lung cancer ( n = 2), breast cancer ( n = 2), and hematologic cancers ( n = 1). Most of the interventions ( n = 10) were multifaceted. Auditing and providing feedback, having a clinical champion, educating clinicians through developing and disseminating new guidelines, and developing a decision support tool are the common components of the de-implementation interventions. Six of the de-implementation interventions were effective in reducing low-value care, five studies reported mixed results, and one study showed no difference across intervention arms. Eleven studies aimed to de-implement low-value care by changing providers’ behavior, and 1 de-implementation intervention focused on changing the patients’ behavior. Three studies had little risk of bias, five had moderate, and four had a high risk of bias. Conclusions This review demonstrated a paucity of evidence in many areas of the de-implementation of low-value care including lack of studies in active de-implementation (i.e., healthcare organizations initiating de-implementation interventions purposefully aimed at reducing low-value care).

Patients with cancer typically have greater financial hardships and time costs than individuals without cancer. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this, while posing substantial challenges to delivering cancer care and resulting in important changes in care-delivery models, including the rapid adoption of telehealth. To estimate patient travel, time, and cost savings associated with telehealth for cancer care delivery. An economic evaluation of cost savings from completed telehealth visits from April 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, in a single-institution National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All patients aged 18 to 65 years who completed telehealth visits within the designated time frame and had a Florida mailing address documented in their electronic medical record were included in the study cohort. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to June 2021. The main outcome was estimated patient cost savings from telehealth, which included 2 components: costs of travel (defined as roundtrip distance saved from car travel) and potential loss of productivity due to the medical visit (defined as loss of income from roundtrip travel plus loss of income from in-person clinic visits). Two different models with a combination of 2 different mileage rates ($0.56 and $0.82 per mile) and census tract-level median hourly wages were used. The study included 25 496 telehealth visits with 11 688 patients. There were 4525 (3795 patients) new or established visits and 20 971 (10 049 patients) follow-up visits. Median (IQR) age was 55.0 (46.0-61.0) years among the telehealth visits, with 15 663 visits (61.4%) by women and 18 360 visits (72.0%) by Hispanic non-White patients. According to cost models, the estimated mean (SD) total cost savings ranged from $147.4 ($120.1) at $0.56/mile to $186.1 ($156.9) at $0.82/mile. For new or established visits, the mean (SD) total cost savings per visit ranged from $176.6 ($136.3) at $0.56/mile to $222.8 ($177.4) at $0.82/mile, and for follow-up visits, the mean (SD) total cost savings per visit was $141.1 ($115.3) at $0.56/mile to $178.1 ($150.9) at $0.82/mile. In this economic evaluation, telehealth was associated with savings in patients time and travel costs, which may reduce the financial toxicity of cancer care. Expansion of telehealth oncology services may be an effective strategy to reduce the financial burden among patients with cancer.

ObjectiveTo characterise telehealth use, reasons for using or not using telehealth and the factors associated with telehealth use among US adults with diabetes.DesignA cross-sectional study.SettingData were sourced from the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey.ParticipantsUS adults aged 18 years or older with self-reported diagnosis of diabetes (both type 1 and type 2).Primary and secondary outcomesPast 12-month utilisation of telehealth services, modality (eg, video, voice only), overall perception of quality of care, perceived trust in healthcare system and patient-centred communication score.ResultsIn an analysis of 1116 US adults with diabetes, representing 33.6 million individuals, 48.1% reported telehealth use in the past year. Telehealth users were likely to be younger, women, with higher income, and urban dwellers. Older adults (≥65 years) were less likely to use telehealth compared with those aged 18–49 years (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.90). Higher income and more frequent healthcare visits were predictors of telehealth usage, with no significant differences across race, education or location. Across respondents with telehealth usage, 39.3% reported having video-only, 35.0% having phone (voice)-only and 25.7% having both modalities. The main motivations included provider recommendation, convenience, COVID-19 avoidance and guidance on in-person care needs. Non-users cited preferences for in-person visits, privacy concerns and technology challenges. Patient-reported quality-of-care outcomes were comparable between telehealth users and non-users, with no significant differences observed by telehealth modality or area of residence (metro status).ConclusionsAround half of US adults with diabetes used telehealth services in the past year. Patient-reported care quality was similar for telehealth and in-person visits. However, further efforts are needed to address key barriers to telehealth adoption, including privacy concern, technology difficulties, and care coordination issues.

Introduction Cancer patients in rural areas experience greater barriers to treatment access compared with patients in urban areas. There is limited research on how the COVID‐19 pandemic affected cancer treatment delivery for rural patients who were also diagnosed with COVID‐19. This study has two objectives: to assess (1) the urban–rural differences in cancer care and (2) the predictors of cancer treatment delay or discontinuation (TDD) among patients diagnosed with COVID‐19. Methods We used data from the American Society of Clinical Oncology Survey on COVID‐19 in Oncology Registry (March 2020–September 2022), which included cancer patients with test‐confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (N = 3797). Data included patient sociodemographic characteristics, COVID‐19 diagnosis information, cancer clinical characteristics, and changes to cancer treatment. Cancer TDD was defined as any scheduled treatment by more than 2 weeks. Rurality was examined through both patient residence and oncology practice. We computed adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) using multivariable Poisson regressions to assess predictors of cancer TDD in urban and rural areas. Results During the study period, 44.1% of patients with COVID‐19 experienced either cancer treatment delay or discontinuation and 5.7% experienced cancer treatment discontinuation. Controlling for other factors, receiving care in a rural oncology practice was associated with cancer TDD (aPR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.01–1.55). Differences in cancer TDD were not found across rurality of patient residence. Among rural patients (N = 582), Hispanic/Latinx cancer patients had greater prevalence of cancer TDD (aPR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.04–2.33) compared with non‐Hispanic White cancer patients. Conclusion Our findings can be used to inform programs and policies to minimize the impact of future public health emergencies on cancer care delivery in rural areas. Additional research is needed to explore potential differences in cancer care delivery across urban and rural oncology practices and patients.

Introduction Research on pre-surgical education and discharge planning for head and neck cancer (HNC) remains limited. To address this gap, this qualitative study aims to assess patient and caregiver perspectives on pre-surgical education and discharge planning in HNC surgery. Methods and Materials Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 individuals who received HNC surgery and 10 of their caregivers after hospital discharge. Participants were recruited from an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center and a community oncology setting. Results Five key recommendations for HNC surgical care emerged from the data: (1) improve communication about anticipated side effects; (2) provide targeted education through multiple modalities; (3) connect patients and caregivers with individuals who have gone through HNC surgery; (4) improve patient-provider communication for individuals with speech, vision, and hearing impairment; and (5) present the best and worst case scenarios to prepare individuals for post-surgical recovery. Conclusion Participants identified gaps in pre-surgical education and discharge planning and provided recommendations to improve HNC surgical care. Plain Language Summary The goal of the study was to understand how to better prepare and support individuals with head and neck cancer and their family caregivers before and after surgery. 23 people (13 patients and 10 family caregivers) were interviewed about their experiences. Five recommendations were provided: 1. Improve communication about possible side effects from surgery 2. Provide education in multiple ways 3. Connect patients and caregivers with other people who have gone through surgery 4. Improve communication with individuals who may have trouble hearing, seeing, or speaking 5. Provide information on all possible outcomes including the best case scenario and the worst case scenario This information can help hospitals and medical teams improve how they prepare and support patients and families before and after surgery.