The Provision and Perceptions of Telemedicine Services Among Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners During COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Study in Hong Kong, China.

Objectives: Telemedicine has been widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among other health care professionals, Chinese medicine practitioners (CMPs) face practical challenges in providing telemedicine consultations. This study aims to explore CMPs' experience and perceptions of telemedicine service provision before and during the pandemic. Methods: A territory-wide cross-sectional online survey was conducted in Hong Kong between April and May 2022. A structured questionnaire with open-ended questions was used to investigate the provision of and perception on telemedicine service, as well as usability of telemedicine among CMPs. Results: A total of 195 CMPs participated the survey. Before COVID-19, 42% (81/195) had been providing telemedicine services, and the proportion doubled during COVID-19. CMPs in the private sector are the main providers. Mobile apps including WhatsApp, WeChat, and Zoom were commonly used for consultations (75%, 120/161). Barriers in providing telemedicine included inability of conducting physical examination on patients (69%, 134/195), legal and ethical concerns over medical negligence (61%, 118/195), and patients' incompetence on e-literacy (50%, 98/195). Respondents urged professional and regulatory bodies to provide an explicit clinical guideline that demonstrate best practice in traditional Chinese medicine telemedicine, and to clarify legal and ethical implications of such practice. Conclusions: CMPs demonstrated their competency in telemedicine, and most of them provided telemedicine during COVID-19. Development of appropriate guidelines on the provision of telemedicine would support CMPs to continue provision after the pandemic, whereas a user-friendly and comprehensive telemedicine e-platform would enhance quality of such service. Facilitating patients with lower e-literacy to access telemedicine is key to reduce disparities.

Public Preference for Off-Label Use of Drugs for Cancer Treatment and Relative Importance of Associated Adverse Events: A Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patients may get more treatment options with off-label use of drugs while exposed to unknown risks of adverse events. Little is known about the public or demand-side perspective on off-label drug use, which is important to understand how to use off-label treatment and devise financial assistance. This study aimed to quantify public preference for off-label cancer treatment outcomes, process, and costs, and perceived importance of associated adverse events. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment and a best-worst scaling were conducted in Hong Kong in December 2022. Quota sampling was used to randomly select the study sample from a territory-wide panel of working-age adults. Preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for treatment effectiveness, risk of adverse events, mode of drug administration, and availability of off-label treatment guidelines were estimated using a random parameter logit model and latent class model. The relative importance of different adverse events was elicited using Case 1 best-worst scaling. RESULTS: A total of 435 respondents provided valid responses. In the discrete choice experiment, the respondents indicated that extra overall survival as treatment effectiveness (WTP: HK$448,000/US$57,400 for 12-month vs 3-month extra survival) was the most important attribute for off-label drugs, followed by the risk of adverse events (WTP: HK$318,000/US$40,800 for 10% chance to have adverse event vs 55%), mode of drug administration (WTP: HK$42,000/US$5300 for oral intake vs injection), and availability of guidelines (WTP: HK$31,000/US$4000 for available versus not available). Four groups with distinct preferences were identified, including effectiveness oriented, off-label use refusal, oral intake oriented, and adverse event risk aversion. In the best-worse scaling, hypothyroidism, nausea/vomiting, and arthralgia/joint pain were the three most important adverse events based on the perceptions of respondents. Risk-averse respondents, who were identified from the discrete choice experiment, had different perceived importance of the adverse events compared with those with other preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Knowing the preference and WTP for cancer treatment-related characteristics from a societal perspective facilitates doctors' communications with patients on decision making and treatment goal-setting for off-label treatment, and enables devising financial assistance for related treatments. This study also provides important insight to inform evaluations of public acceptance and information dissemination in drug development as well as future economic evaluations.

Evaluation of Length of Stay, Care Volume, In-Hospital Mortality, and Emergency Readmission Rate Associated With Use of Diagnosis-Related Groups for Internal Resource Allocation in Public Hospitals in Hong Kong.

Importance: Hong Kong's internal resource allocation system for public inpatient care changed from a global budget system to one based on diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) in 2009 and returned to a global budget system in 2012. Changes in patient and hospital outcomes associated with moving from a DRG-based system to a global budget system for inpatient care have rarely been evaluated. Objective: To examine associations between the introduction and discontinuation of DRGs and changes in length of stay, volume of care, in-hospital mortality rates, and emergency readmission rates in the inpatient population in acute care hospitals overall, stratified by age group, and across 5 medical conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included data from patients aged 45 years or older who were hospitalized in public acute care settings in Hong Kong before the introduction (April 2006 to March 2009), during implementation (April 2009 to March 2012), and after discontinuation (April 2012 to November 2014) of the DRG scheme. Data analysis was conducted from January to June 2021. Exposures: Public hospitals transitioned from a global budget payment system to a DRG-based system in April 2009 and returned to a global budget system in April 2014. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the association of use of DRGs with patient-level length of stay, in-hospital mortality rate, 1-month emergency readmission rate, and population-level number of admissions per month. An interrupted time series design was used to estimate changes in the level and slope of outcome variables after introduction and discontinuation of DRGs, accounting for pretrends. Results: This study included 7 604 390 patient episodes. Overall, the mean (SD) age of patients was 68.97 (13.20) years, and 52.17% were male. The introduction of DRGs was associated with a 1.77% (95% CI, 1.23%-2.32%) decrease in the mean length of stay, a 2.90% (95% CI, 2.52%-3.28%) increase in the number of patients admitted, a 4.12% (95% CI, 1.89%-6.35%) reduction in in-hospital mortality, and a 2.37% (95% CI, 1.28%-3.46%) decrease in emergency readmissions. Discontinuation of the DRG scheme was associated with a 0.93% (95% CI, 0.42%-1.44%) increase in the mean length of stay and a 1.82% (95% CI, 1.47%-2.17%) reduction in the number of patients treated after adjusting for covariates; no statistically significant change was observed in in-hospital mortality (-0.14%; 95% CI, -2.29% to 2.01%) or emergency readmission rate (-0.29%; 95% CI, -1.30% to 0.71%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the introduction of DRGs was associated with shorter lengths of stay and increased hospital volume, and discontinuation was associated with longer lengths of stay and decreased hospital volume. In-hospital mortality and emergency readmission rates did not significantly change after discontinuation of DRGs.