Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34982370›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2022

Patient Experience with In-Person and Telehealth Visits Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Large Integrated Health System in the United States.

Ron D Hays, Samuel A Skootsky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The safety and acceptability of using telehealth for follow-up of patients following cancer surgery: A systematic review.European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Satisfaction with Telehealth Care in the United States: Cross-Sectional Survey.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ron D HaysDepartment of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6697-907X
Samuel A SkootskyDepartment of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. SSkootsky@mednet.ucla.edu.

Funding

Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems V (CAHPS V)U18HS025920 · AHRQ · RAND CORPORATION · PI HAYS, RONALD DALE · 2017 to 2021
$5.6M
AHRQ HHS U18 HS025920
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformation about telehealth versus in-office visits and how patient experience before compared to during the COVID-19 pandemic is important for healthcare planning.

objectiveTo compare patient experience by visit type and before and during the pandemic.

designSurvey of patients assessing ambulatory care before and during the pandemic.

participantsA total of 58,500 adult patients (13,928 primary care and 44,581 specialty physician visits) at a large integrated health system with 197 clinics on the west coast of the United States. The majority were female (59%), 55 or older (65%), and non-Hispanic White (55%), and had an in-office visit (87%) while 10% had a tele-video and 3% a phone visit. MAIN MEASURES: Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Survey 3.0 doctor communication, care coordination, access, and office staff composites; an overall rating of the doctor; and whether the patient would recommend the doctor to family and friends. KEY

resultsPatient experience with telehealth visits was as positive as or more positive than that with traditional office-based visits. Doctor communication on tele-video visits was viewed as slightly more positive than that of in-office or phone visits. Tele-video visits were also slightly more positive than in-office visits for care coordination, overall rating of the doctor, and willingness to recommend to family and friends. Office staff were viewed less positively on the phone than tele-video or in-office visits. Patient experience was similar before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., on a 0-100 possible range with a higher score being better, doctor communication was 94.4 before and 94.9 during).

conclusionsThe positive experiences with telehealth, especially tele-video, may be due to patient appreciation of efforts made to maintain access, the focused nature of telehealth visits, and help by staff for navigation technical issues. Lessons learned about delivering responsive telehealth care can be used to ensure high-quality care after the pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19Delivery of Health Care, IntegratedPatient SatisfactionTelemedicineAdultFemaleHumansMalePandemicsPatient Outcome AssessmentUnited StatesCAHPS®COVID-19patient experiencetelehealth

Identifiers

PMID34982370
PMCPMC8725638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.