Factors Associated with Reliance on Audio-Only Technology (Telephone) for Completion of Telepsychiatry Visits.

Introduction: The ability to access telepsychiatry through audio-video technology versus audio-only (telephone) technology potentially leads to inequitable outcomes. This study examines the characteristics of patients who relied on the telephone to complete outpatient telepsychiatry visits in a large health system. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of all telepsychiatry outpatient visits conducted from May 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. Demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic factors were extracted from the electronic health record. Two-sample t tests were used for continuous variables and χ2 tests for categorical variables for bivariate analyses. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine the association between only telephone visits and all input variables. Results: Eight hundred ninety-four (8.9%) patients completed all visits only by telephone during the study period. In bivariate analyses, factors associated with telephone-only visits included male sex, non-English primary language, Black race, unmarried status, non-Hispanic ethnicity, older age, Medicare enrollment, uninsured status, and higher social vulnerability index (SVI). Psychiatric diagnoses associated with only telephone visits included substance use disorders and psychotic disorders. In multivariate analyses, factors associated with higher odds of only telephone visits included older age, inactive patient portal, comorbid diabetes, higher SVI, and higher broadband adoption. Psychiatric diagnoses associated with higher odds of completing only telephone visits included psychotic disorders, substance use disorders, or intellectual/developmental disabilities. Conclusions: Several patient-level factors are associated with a reliance on the telephone to complete telepsychiatry appointments.

The Effects of 'Face' on Listening Comprehension: Evidence from Advanced Jordanian Speakers of English.

This empirical study examines the extent to which 'face', i.e. (audio visual dialogues), affects the listening comprehension of advanced Jordanian EFL learners in a TOFEL-like test, as opposed to its absence (i.e. a purely audio test) which is the current norm in many English language proficiency tests, including but not limited to TOFEL iBT, TOEIC and academic IELTS. Through an online experiment, 60 Jordanian postgraduate linguistics and English literature students (advanced EFL learners) at the University of Jordan sit for two listening tests (simulating English proficiency tests); namely, one which is purely audio [i.e. without any face (including any visuals such as motion, as well as still pictures)], and one which is audiovisual/video. The results clearly show that the inclusion of visuals enhances subjects' performance in listening tests. It is concluded that since the aim of English proficiency tests such as TOEFL iBT is to qualify or disqualify subjects to work and study in western English-speaking countries, the exclusion of visuals is unfounded. In actuality, most natural interaction includes visibility of the interlocutors involved, and hence test takers who sit purely audio proficiency tests in English or any other language are placed at a disadvantage.

Patient Perceptions of Audio-Only Versus Video Telehealth Visits: A Qualitative Study Among Patients in an Academic Medical Center Setting.

Introduction: Telehealth utilization surged during the COVID-19 pandemic, offering expanded health care access. Audio-only visits emerged as a crucial tool for patients facing technology or connectivity barriers to still use telehealth. This qualitative study aims to better understand patient perceptions of audio-only versus video telehealth visits during the COVID-19 pandemic, and how patients perceive the role of each in their overall health care. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 adult patients seeking care at an academic medical center located in the Southeast region of the United States. Patients had experienced both an audio-only and video telehealth visit within the past 6 months. Topics covered in the interview included comfort, preference, quality, and communication during each type of visit. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed using a general inductive approach. Results: Participants valued having both modalities available largely due to convenience and saw these visits as supplemental or supporting their in-person care. Preferences for visit types were varied among participants and were context-specific, influenced by visit purpose and provider rapport. Patients viewed audio-only visits favorably for informational follow-ups and highlighted their convenience, particularly for multitasking and caregiving duties. In contrast, video visits were seen as more effective for communication due to visual cues and better suited for demonstrating health conditions. Audio-only visits were also seen as less technology-dependent and served as a vital back-up to failed video encounters. Discussion: Despite varied preferences, patients perceived both modalities as complementary to in-person care. Concerns around the quality of care were mitigated by patients' and providers' judicious use of visit types based on clinical appropriateness and existing rapport. The results emphasize the necessity and flexibility of audio-only visits in ensuring equitable access to telehealth, especially for those with technology limitations or demanding responsibilities. To maintain the access and convenience afforded by telehealth and ensure these benefits are offered equitably, policy makers and health care organizations must continue to provide flexible telehealth options, including audio-only visits.

Old tech but not low tech: telephone-based treatment provision for substance use.

The future of telemedicine for substance use treatment hangs by a thread, as the United States awaits approval of proposed regulations and laws to increase care access in light of the 2022 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services revisions allowing for audio-only care. Telemedicine improves patient care access and outcomes. Audio-only telemedicine can be an effective and viable modality for individuals without technology resources (devices, internet services, and literacy), those with reduced telehealth service utilization (Black individuals or those with unstable housing, who are older, with low income, or with low education), and those living in rural locations. Studies suggest that telephone visits for buprenorphine treatment are well-accepted by patients and providers, making telephone visits essential in care access to reduce disparities. Telephone counseling for patients in substance use treatment is convenient, flexible, and empowering and can augment therapeutic alliances and treatment goals. Both providers and patients advocate for patient-centered hybrid care to include telephone-only treatment, which enhances service productivity and care access; reduces no-show rates, costs, and stigma; and is sustainable. Numerous solutions can expand technology access, proficiency, assimilation, and trust. Despite being "old" technology, the telephone remains an essential resource for substance use treatment.

Telephone versus video consultations: A systematic review of comparative effectiveness studies and guidance for choosing the most appropriate modality.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review compared clinical, service and cost effectiveness of telephone consultations (TC) to video consultations (VC). METHODS: We searched Embase, CINAHL and MEDLINE for empirical studies that compared TC to VC using clinical, service or economic outcome measures. Clinician or patient preference and satisfaction studies were excluded. Findings were synthesised descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 79 articles were included. The most effective modality was found to be VC in 40 studies (50%) and TC in 3 (4%). VC and TC were found to be equivalent in 28 of the included articles (35%). VC were superior or equivalent to TC for all clinical outcomes. When compared to TC, VC were likely to have better patient engagement and retention, to improve transfer decisions, and reduce downstream sub-acute care utilisation. The impact of telehealth modality on consultation time, completion rates, failure-to-attend rates and acute care utilisation was mixed. VC were consistently found to be more cost effective despite having a higher incremental cost than TC. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review demonstrates equal or better, but not inferior clinical and cost outcomes for consultations delivered by VC when compared to TC. VC appear to be more clinically effective when visual information is required, when verbal communication with the patient is impaired and when patient engagement and retention is linked to clinical outcomes. We have provided conditions where VC should be used in preference to TC. These can be used by clinicians to guide the choice of telehealth modality. Cost effectiveness is also important to consider when choosing modality.