Rapid Deployment of Telemedicine in HIV Care: Mixed Methods Study of Providers' Attitudes and Perceptions.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted an abrupt transition to telemedicine for HIV care, necessitating the exploration of provider attitudes and experiences to understand its ongoing viability and impact. Objective: This study aimed to assess providers' attitudes toward and experiences with telemedicine at HIV clinics in the Chicago area during the COVID-19 pandemic at 2 time points and at 2 clinical sites. Methods: We conducted a convergent mixed methods study to evaluate and explore providers' attitudes toward and experiences with telemedicine at HIV clinics in the Chicago area during the COVID-19 pandemic, applying the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework and the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. This study assessed HIV providers via surveys at 2 time points, capturing responses on the acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and maintenance of telemedicine. Semistructured key informant interviews were conducted on a random selection of 10 participants to explore perceived experiences with telemedicine. Results: Among emailed providers, 43 of 83 (51.8%) and 27 of 82 (32.9%) responded to survey 1 and survey 2, respectively. The first survey recorded telemedicine usage at 75%, which decreased to 58% by the second survey. Overall, the majority of respondents agreed with statements that assessed telemedicine as appropriate, acceptable, and feasible. There were overall few statistical differences in responses between sites, although more providers at the community site indicated at least some potential value in telemedicine when compared to providers at the university hospital (100% agree or strongly agree vs 82.3%; P=.04) in survey 1. In survey 1, providers with more than 10 years of experience were less likely to report telemedicine helped them see more patients (31.6% agree or strongly agree vs 70.6% for providers with ≤10 y of experience; P=.008). Fewer experienced providers felt they could talk about private issues with their patients during telemedicine (57.9% of more experienced vs 88.3% of less experienced providers; P=.03). Key informant interviews provided qualitative insights into telemedicine integration, revealing mixed sentiments; providers appreciated the flexibility and accessibility that telemedicine offered but preferred in-person visits for their thoroughness, especially for physical examinations and laboratory tests. Despite initial barriers such as technical challenges and patient preferences for in-person visits, telemedicine was deemed feasible for maintaining communication and care quality. Providers highlighted the need for better technological support and ongoing training to optimize telemedicine usage. Conclusions: Our study underscores telemedicine as a sustainable adjunct to traditional HIV care, emphasizing the importance of addressing technological and training barriers to enhance its efficacy.