ArticleBMC health services research2026
High usage of telephone telemedicine among people living with HIV at two federally qualified health centers in Los Angeles.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFederally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in the United States began the widespread use of telemedicine for HIV care during the COVID-19 pandemic. During a mature phase of the pandemic, we sought to increase the uptake of telemedicine, characterize uptake by modality (telephone versus video), and explore the association of telemedicine use with viral suppression.
methodsWe implemented a multi-pronged intervention to increase telemedicine (particularly with video) and performed a prospective cohort study to evaluate this intervention. The intervention included: (1) provision of an easy-to-use video visit platform; (2) training on telemedicine best practices; (3) computer-based and support staff reminders to offer a choice of telephone or video telemedicine; (4) a telemedicine navigator; and (5) quarterly quality improvement meetings. We conducted baseline and endline surveys and chart reviews with a cohort of people living with HIV (PLHIV) to measure telemedicine use (including offer, uptake, and visit completion by modality) and changes in viral load. We used mixed effects regression models to evaluate the intervention's association with viral suppression over time (< 40 copies/mL).
resultsWe enrolled 271 PLHIV between March and November 2022 and implemented the intervention from August 2022-October 2023. Telemedicine visits (telephone and video) in this cohort increased during the intervention period from 13% to 17% of all visits, with this increase predominantly driven by telephone visits. Clinicians' offer of telemedicine visits (based on participant report) varied, with 36% of clients offered both telephone and video visits during the intervention period, 36% offered telephone visits only, and 28% not offered any telemedicine. Visit completion was highest for telephone visits (82%) and lower for video (58%) and in-person (57%) visits. Viral suppression rates were not significantly different from baseline to endline, regardless of telemedicine use: 71.0% to 77.5% in non-users (p = 0.26) and 83.8% to 81.0% (p = 0.19) in users.
conclusionsOur intervention increased the use of telemedicine, predominantly delivered as telephone visits. Additional research is needed on the impact of telemedicine on care engagement over time, on viral suppression over longer follow-up, and on strategies to increase utilization of video visits for PLHIV cared for in FQHC settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.