Consumer preferences for telehealth in Australia: A discrete choice experiment.

This study aims to elicit consumer preferences regarding telehealth and face-to-face consultations in Australia. It used a discrete choice experiment, presenting participants with a series of hypothetical choices, and based on their responses, infer what is most important to them. Data were analysed using conditional logit regression and latent class analysis. A total of 1,025 participants completed the survey, considering four different clinical scenarios. Face-to-face contacts were, on average, preferred to either telephone or video services. However, telehealth was identified as an attractive option if it prevents significant travel and can be conducted with a familiar doctor. Participants were strongly driven by cost, particularly greater than $30. Telehealth was least preferred for situations involving a new and unknown physical symptom, and relatively more preferred for surgical follow-up. The latent class analysis demonstrates only 15.9% of participants appeared unwilling to consider telehealth. The findings of this study suggest that meeting the needs of the Australian population requires a blended approach to service delivery, with telehealth being valued in a range of clinical scenarios. Price sensitivity was evident, therefore if telehealth services can be delivered with lower patient cost, then they are likely to be attractive.

Consumer preferences, experiences, and attitudes towards telehealth: Qualitative evidence from Australia.

In Australia, telehealth is not new, with several telehealth specialist services being available for those living in rural and remote communities. However, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth was not routinely available for primary care or urban specialist appointments. There has been an increased focus in the use of telehealth within primary care, and particularly general practice, but overall, there has been limited research to date to guide telehealth best-practice based on consumer experiences and preferences within these settings. We aimed to capture the consumer experience of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, through a novel Kitchen Table Discussion (KTD) method. This increases access to a broader community consumer cohort, with consumer hosts leading discussions in a safe environment. The KTDs were conducted in May 2021, with 10 community members each hosting a group of up to 10 participants. A total of 90 participants took part from across Australia, with the majority living in major cities, although a significant proportion lived in inner and outer regional areas of Australia, or had experience living in rural, regional or remote areas. Seventy percent of participants reported using telehealth in the past. Data were analysed sequentially using thematic analysis and identified key themes: modality, convenience, access, wait time, existing relationship, communication, connectivity, cost, and privacy. Overall, the future of telehealth looks hopeful from the perspective of the consumer, but significant improvements are required to improve consumer engagement and experience. It is evident that 'one size does not fit all', with results suggesting consumers value the availability of telehealth and having choice and flexibility to use telehealth when appropriate, but do not want to see telehealth replacing face-to-face delivery. Participants tended to agree that telehealth was not a preferred method when physical examination was required but would suit certain points of the patient journey.

Educational attainment and willingness to use technology for health and to share health information - The reimagining healthcare survey.

BACKGROUND: Australia has seen a rapid uptake of virtual care since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to describe the willingness of consumers to use digital technology for health and to share their health information; and explore differences by educational attainment and area of remoteness. METHODS: We conducted an online survey on consumer preferences for virtual modes of healthcare delivery between June and September 2021. Participants were recruited through the study's partner organisations and an online market research company. Australian residents aged ≥18 years who provided study consent and completed the survey were included in the analysis. We reported the weighted percentages of participants who selected negative response to the questions to understand the size of the population that were unlikely to adopt virtual care. Age-adjusted Poisson regression models were used to estimate the prevalence ratios for selecting negative response associated with education and remoteness. RESULTS: Of the 1778 participants included, 29% were not aware of digital technologies for monitoring/supporting health, 22% did not have access to technologies to support their health, and 19% were not willing to use technologies for health. Over a fifth of participants (range: 21-34%) were not at all willing to use seven of the 15 proposed alternative methods of care. Between 21% and 36% of participants were not at all willing to share de-identified health information tracked in apps/devices with various not-for-profit organisations compared to 47% with private/for-profit health businesses. Higher proportions of participants selected negative response to the questions in the lower educational attainment groups than those with bachelor's degree or above. No difference was observed between area of remoteness. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the digital health literacy of people, especially those with lower educational attainment, will be required for virtual care to become an equitable part of normal healthcare delivery in Australia.