RESUMEN
Two models employed to integrate community health workers (CHWs) in health care settings are community-clinical linkages and employment within health care. Our objective was to understand the variability in how these models are implemented. We conducted a mixed-methods study across a large health system that included CHW focus groups and electronic health record data on patients referred to the teams. We identified three primary themes in the four focus groups (N = 29) and found differences in the demographics and health care use of the 1,097 patients. Both community- and clinically embedded CHWs reported addressing diverse patient needs; yet, challenges persist in integrating both models.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to implementing telemedicine hypertension management in the United States is unknown. METHODS: We examined telemedicine hypertension management versus the effect of usual clinic-based care on blood pressure (BP) and patient/clinician-related heterogeneity in a systematic review/meta-analysis. We searched United States-based randomized trials from Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Compendex, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and 2 trial registries. We used trial-level differences in BP and its control rate at ≥6 months using random-effects models. We examined heterogeneity in univariable metaregression and in prespecified subgroups (clinicians leading pharmacotherapy [physician/nonphysician], self-management support [pharmacist/nurse], White versus non-White patient predominant trials [>50% patients/trial], diabetes predominant trials [≥25% patients/trial], and White patient predominant but not diabetes predominant trials versus both non-White and diabetes patient predominant trials]. RESULTS: Thirteen, 11, and 7 trials were eligible for systolic and diastolic BP difference and BP control, respectively. Differences in systolic and diastolic BP and BP control rate were -7.3 mmâ Hg (95% CI, -9.4 to -5.2), -2.7 mmâ Hg (-4.0 to -1.5), and 10.1% (0.4%-19.9%), respectively, favoring telemedicine. Greater BP reduction occurred in trials where nonphysicians led pharmacotherapy, pharmacists provided self-management support, White patient predominant trials, and White patient predominant but not diabetes predominant trials, with no difference by diabetes predominant trials. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine hypertension management is more effective than clinic-based care in the United States, particularly when nonphysicians lead pharmacotherapy and pharmacists provide self-management support. Non-White patient predominant trials achieved less BP reduction. Equity-conscious, locally informed adaptation of telemedicine interventions is needed before wider implementation.
Asunto(s)
Antihipertensivos , Hipertensión , Telemedicina , Humanos , Hipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipertensión/fisiopatología , Estados Unidos , Antihipertensivos/uso terapéutico , Presión Sanguínea/fisiología , Presión Sanguínea/efectos de los fármacos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto/métodos , Monitoreo Ambulatorio de la Presión Arterial/métodosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to understand the characteristics of patients who used telemedicine for diabetes management to inform future implementation of telemedicine. METHODS: We examined patient characteristics associated with telemedicine use for diabetes mellitus (DM) care between March 1, 2020 and April 1, 2021 (the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic period) in a large university health system when telemedicine visits increased rapidly. Logistic regression models assessed patient characteristics associated with telemedicine visits and delays in DM process measures (hemoglobin A1c checks, nephropathy, and retinopathy evaluations) during the pandemic period after adjusting for potential confounders and corresponding values before the pandemic period (March 1, 2019-February 29, 2020). RESULTS: A total of 45,159 patients were seen from 987,791 visits during the pandemic period. The number of visits averaged one visit less during the pandemic period than before the pandemic period. Approximately 5.4% of patients used telemedicine during the pandemic period from 42,750 visits. The mean (standard deviation) telemedicine visit was 1.28 (0.91). Men, Asian, Black, and other race (vs White), having Medicare or uninsured (vs private insurance), were less likely to use telemedicine. Patients with more visits before the pandemic period were more likely to use telemedicine and less likely to experience a delay in DM process measures during the pandemic period. Telemedicine users were 18% less likely to experience a delay in nephropathy visits than nonusers, but without difference for other process measures. CONCLUSIONS: Race, sex, insurance, and prepandemic in-person visits were associated with telemedicine use for DM management in a large health system. Telemedicine use was not associated with delays in hemoglobin A1c testing, nephropathy, and retinopathy assessments. Understanding reasons for not using telemedicine is important to be able to deliver equitable DM care.