Parent, physician, and therapist experience of in-person, hybrid, and all-virtual models of physiatry care for children with special healthcare needs.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare three models of pediatric physiatry care (in-person, hybrid, and all-virtual) in terms of parent experience and physician- and therapist-reported quality of care. We hypothesized that the all-virtual model would have lower parent experience scores and lower quality scores compared with the other two models of care. METHODS: We designed a convergent parallel mixed methods study incorporating a cluster-randomized crossover design. Quantitative data included surveys of parents, physicians, and therapists after visits to 13 medical therapy units in Northern California between January 2020 and January 2022. Qualitative data were collected in six focus groups with parents, physicians, and therapists. RESULTS: A total of 2,455 visits were completed for 1,281 unique children during the study period, including 507 in-person visits, 246 hybrid visits, and 1,702 all-virtual visits. There were no differences in parent experience scores between the three models of care. Physicians and therapists rated all-virtual visits significantly lower in terms of quality of care, parent education, and physical exam, compared with the other two models of care, but qualitative results highlighted specific instances where all-virtual visits could be useful. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that parents, therapists, and physicians find a hybrid virtual model is an acceptable model of care that maintains the quality of care and facilitates parent education. All-virtual models may be appropriate for specific circumstances but are perceived as lower quality. Research exploring implementation of these models would be valuable for providing practical guidance in the future. WHAT'S NEW: This study is the first to compare three models of pediatric physiatry care (in-person, hybrid, all-virtual) from the perspectives of parents, physicians, and therapists. Qualitative data provides insights into the perceptions of these different stakeholders.

How cy pres promotes transdisciplinary convergence science: an academic health center for women's cardiovascular and brain health.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is largely preventable, and the leading cause of death for men and women. Though women have increased life expectancy compared to men, there are marked sex disparities in prevalence and risk of CVD-associated mortality and dementia. Yet, the basis for these and female-male differences is not completely understood. It is increasingly recognized that heart and brain health represent a lifetime of exposures to shared risk factors (including obesity, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and hypertension) that compromise cerebrovascular health. We describe the process and resources for establishing a new research Center for Women's Cardiovascular and Brain Health at the University of California, Davis as a model for: (1) use of the cy pres principle for funding science to improve health; (2) transdisciplinary collaboration to leapfrog progress in a convergence science approach that acknowledges and addresses social determinants of health; and (3) training the next generation of diverse researchers. This may serve as a blueprint for future Centers in academic health institutions, as the cy pres mechanism for funding research is a unique mechanism to leverage residual legal settlement funds to catalyze the pace of scientific discovery, maximize innovation, and promote health equity in addressing society's most vexing health problems.