Publications

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid transition to telemedicine for mental health care and redefined many providers' work environments and practices. The purpose of the study was to investigate the impact of work location on telemental health (TMH) benefits, disruptions, and concerns to further understand the rapid implementation of telemedicine for mental health treatment. Methods: A sample of 175 practicing TMH providers completed an online survey between July and August 2020. Providers answered questions about personal demographics and practice characteristics. Next, they answered questions about benefits, disruptions, and concerns regarding the use of telemedicine in their practice. Chi-square and independent samples t-test were conducted to identify work location differences for personal demographics and clinical practice characteristics. Three multivariate analyses of covariance were conducted to examine overall differences in perceptions of telemedicine benefits, concerns, and disruptions based on work location while covarying for provider race, ethnicity, percentage of caseload seen through telemedicine, practice type, specialty, and primary method of reimbursement. Results: TMH providers who primarily work from an office reported more benefit of reduced costs/overhead (ηp2 = 0.039), less benefit of limiting the spread of the virus (ηp2 = 0.028), and more concern about reimbursement (ηp2 = 0.046) than those who primarily work from home. We observed no difference in disruptions, patient access to care, quality of care, and work-life balance. Discussion: Exploration into work location of TMH providers aids in understanding of clinical workflows and provider wellbeing. Our findings suggest that telemedicine may be easily integrated into different types of clinical workflows and work locations.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal and state health policies allowed temporary flexibilities for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, leading to a sharp increase in telemedicine use. However, many of the flexibilities that enabled innovation and growth in telemedicine continue temporarily since the federal emergency declaration ended in May 2023, and the United States has not made permanent decisions about telemedicine policy. Analysts have raised concerns about increased spending, program integrity, safety, and equity, and recommend strengthening oversight.

METHODS: Here, we argue that we must continue the flexibilities to better understand telemedicine's quality, safety, and outcomes, and until the United States can develop an evidence-based digital health strategy. A premature regression to pre-pandemic telemedicine policies risks unintended consequences.

CONCLUSION: We must continue the current policy flexibilities, safeguard against fraud and abuse, and immediately prioritize research and evaluation of telemedicine's quality, safety, and outcomes, to avoid unintended consequences and support more permanent policy decision-making.

INTRODUCTION: This study investigated how mental health providers' use of telemedicine has changed since the coronavirus disease (COVID) 2019 pandemic and their expectations for continuing to use it once the pandemic ends.

METHODS: A 15-min online survey was completed by 175 practicing and licensed telemental health providers who use telemedicine. In addition to personal and professional demographic items, the survey included items about the frequency of telemedicine use, proportion of caseload served by telemedicine, comfort using telemedicine before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and expectations to use telemedicine after the pandemic ends. A series of χ2 analyses, an independent samples t-test, and analyses of variance were conducted.

RESULTS: The pandemic resulted in a greater proportion of telemental health providers using telemedicine on a daily basis (17% before and 40% during the pandemic; p < 0.01) and serving more than half of their caseload remotely (9.1% before and 57.7% during the pandemic; p < 0.05). Also, there was a statistically significant increase in their comfort using telemedicine before and during the pandemic (p < 0.001). Providers reported expecting to use telemedicine more often after the pandemic ends (M = 3.35; SD = 0.99). Expectations to provide telemental health services after the pandemic were greater for mental health counselors, providers who practiced in rural regions, and providers who served patients through out-of-pocket payments.

DISCUSSION: Telemental health providers use telemedicine daily as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, with expectations of continuing to use telemedicine in practice after the pandemic. This expectation is more prominent in certain segments of providers and warrants further investigation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate determinants of telemental health (TMH) providers' openness to discuss and confidence to use online mental health information with patients, focusing on providers' eHealth literacy and perceived usefulness of online MH information.

METHODS: TMH providers (N = 472) completed a web-based survey with questions about discussing and using online health information with patients, perceived usefulness of the Internet as a source of patient information, and eHealth literacy.

RESULTS: Providers were open to discussing online health information with patients if they were not treating substance abuse disorders (b = -0.83), felt the Internet was a useful resource (b = 0.18), and felt confident in their skills to evaluate the online information (b = 0.21). Providers were confident using online health information if they worked in a small clinic (b = 0.37), felt the Internet was a useful resource (b = 0.31), knew where to access relevant online health information (b = 0.13), and had skills to help their patients find (b = 0.17) and evaluate (b = 0.54) online information.

CONCLUSION: TMH providers are likely to use online health information resources if they know where and how to find them and perceive the Internet as a useful resource.

INNOVATION: To effectively discuss online health information with patients, providers require skills to evaluate the information with patients.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, research organizations accelerated adoption of technologies that enable remote participation. Now, there's a pressing need to evaluate current decentralization practices and develop appropriate research, education, and operations infrastructure. The purpose of this study was to examine current adoption of decentralization technologies in a sample of clinical research studies conducted by academic research organizations (AROs).

METHODS: The setting was three data coordinating centers in the U.S. These centers initiated coordination of 44 clinical research studies during or after 2020, with national recruitment and enrollment, and entailing coordination between one and one hundred sites. We determined the decentralization technologies used in these studies.

RESULTS: We obtained data for 44/44 (100%) trials coordinated by the three centers. Three technologies have been adopted across nearly all studies (98-100%): eIRB, eSource, and Clinical Trial Management Systems. Commonly used technologies included e-Signature (32/44, 73%), Online Payments Portals (26/44, 59%), ePROs (23/44, 53%), Interactive Response Technology (22/44, 50%), Telemedicine (19/44, 43%), and eConsent (18/44, 41%). Wearables (7/44,16%) and Online Recruitment Portals (5/44,11%) were less common. Rarely utilized technologies included Direct-to-Patient Portals (1/44, 2%) and Home Health Nurse Portals (1/44, 2%).

CONCLUSIONS: All studies incorporated some type of decentralization technology, with more extensive adoption than found in previous research. However, adoption may be strongly influenced by institution-specific IT and informatics infrastructure and support. There are inherent needs, responsibilities, and challenges when incorporating decentralization technology into a research study, and AROs must ensure that infrastructure and informatics staff are adequate.

At least 70% of US adults have metabolic disease. However, less is done to address early disease (e.g., overweight, obesity, prediabetes) versus advanced disease (e.g., type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease). Given the burden of advanced metabolic disease and the burgeoning pandemics of obesity and prediabetes a systematic response is required. To accomplish this, we offer several recommendations: (A) Patients with overweight, obesity, and/or prediabetes must be consistently diagnosed with these conditions in medical records to enable population health initiatives. (B) Patients with early metabolic disease should be offered in-person or virtual lifestyle interventions commensurate with the findings of the Diabetes Prevention Program. (C) Patients unable to participate in or otherwise failing lifestyle intervention must be screened to assess if they require pharmacotherapy. (D) Patients not indicated for, refusing, or failing pharmacotherapy must be screened to assess if they need bariatric surgery. (E) Regardless of treatment approach or lack of treatment, patients must be consistently screened for the progression of early metabolic disease to advanced disease to enable early control. Progression of metabolic disease from an overweight yet otherwise healthy person includes the development of prediabetes, obesity ± prediabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, and heart failure. Systematic approaches in health systems must be deployed with clear protocols and supported by streamlined technologies to manage their population's metabolic health from early through advanced metabolic disease. Additional research is needed to identify and validate optimal system-level interventions. Future research needs to identify strategies to roll out systematic interventions for the treatment of early metabolic disease and to improve the metabolic health among the progressively younger patients being impacted by obesity and diabetes.

Virtual reality (VR) can enhance mental health care. In particular, the effectiveness of VR-based exposure therapy (VRET) has been well-demonstrated for treatment of anxiety disorders. However, most applications of VRET remain localized to clinic spaces. We aimed to explore mental health therapists' perceptions of telehealth-based VRET (tele-VRET) by conducting semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 18 telemental health therapists between October and December 2022. Interview topics included telehealth experiences, exposure therapy over telehealth, perceptions of VR in therapy, and perspectives on tele-VRET. Therapists described how telehealth reduced barriers (88.9%, 16/18), enhanced therapy (61.1%, 11/18), and improved access to clients (38.9%, 7/18), but entailed problems with technology (61.1%, 11/18), uncontrolled settings (55.6%, 10/18), and communication di culties (50%, 9/18). Therapists adapted exposure therapy to telehealth by using online resources (66.7%, 12/18), preparing client expectations (55.6%, 10/18), and adjusting workflows (27.8%, 5/18). Most therapists had used VR before (72.2%, 13/18) and had positive impressions (55.6%, 10/18), but none had used VR clinically. In response to tele-VRET, therapists requested interactive session activities (77.8%, 14/18) and customizable interventions components (55.6%, 10/18). Concerns about tele-VRET included risks with certain clients (77.8%, 14/18), costs (50%, 9/18), side effects and privacy (22.2%, 4/18), and inappropriateness for specific forms of exposure therapy (16.7%, 3/18). These results show how designing for telehealth may extend VRET and can help inform collaborative development of health technologies.

INTRODUCTION: Virtual conversational agents (i.e., chatbots) are an intuitive form of data collection. Understanding older adults' experiences with chatbots could help identify their usability needs. This quality improvement study evaluated older adults' experiences with a chatbot for health data collection. A secondary goal was to understand how perceptions differed based on length of chatbot forms.

METHODS: After a demographic survey, participants (≥60 years) completed either a short (21 questions), moderate (30 questions), or long (66 questions) chatbot form. Perceived ease-of-use, usefulness, usability, likelihood to recommend, and cognitive load were measured post-test. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were used.

RESULTS: A total of 260 participants reported on usability and satisfaction metrics including perceived ease-of-use (5.8/7), usefulness (4.7/7), usability (5.4/7), and likelihood to recommend (Net Promoter Score = 0). Cognitive load (12.3/100) was low. There was a statistically significant difference in perceived usefulness between groups, with a significantly higher mean perceived usefulness for Group 1 than Group 3. No other group differences were observed. The chatbot was perceived as quick, easy, and pleasant with concerns about technical issues, privacy, and security. Participants provided suggestions to enhance progress tracking, edit responses, improve readability, and have options to ask questions.

DISCUSSION: Older adults found the chatbot to be easy, useful, and usable. The chatbot required low cognitive load demonstrating it could be an enjoyable health data collection tool for older adults. These results will inform the development of a health data collection chatbot technology.

BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines and recommendations play an important role in fostering quality, safety, and best practices, as they represent an expert interpretation of the biomedical literature and its application to practice. However, it is unclear whether the recent collective experience of implementing telemedicine and the concurrent growth in the evidence base for teledermatology have resulted in more robust guidance.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to describe the extent and nature of currently available guidance, defined as consensus guidelines and recommendations available for telemedicine in dermatology, with guidance defined as consensus or evidence-based guidelines, protocols, or recommendations.

METHODS: We conducted a single-reviewer scoping review of the literature to assess the extent and nature of available guidance, consensus guidelines, or recommendations related to teledermatology. We limited the review to published material in English since 2013, reflecting approximately the past 10 years. We conducted the review in November and December of the year 2022.

RESULTS: We identified 839 potentially eligible publications, with 9 additional records identified through organizational websites. A total of 15 publications met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The guidelines focused on varied topics and populations about dermatology and skin diseases. However, the most frequent focus was general dermatology (8/15, 53%). Approximately half of the telemedicine guidance described in the publications was specific to dermatology practice in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The publications were largely published in or after the year 2020 (13/15, 87%). Geographical origin spanned several different nations, including Australia, the United States, European countries, and India.

CONCLUSIONS: We found an increase in COVID-19-specific teledermatology guidance during 2020, in addition to general teledermatology guidance during the period of the study. Primary sources of general teledermatology guidance reported in the biomedical literature are the University of Queensland's Centre for Online Health and Australasian College of Dermatologists E-Health Committee, and the American Telemedicine Association. There is strong evidence of international engagement and interest. Despite the recent increase in research reports related to telemedicine, there is a relative lack of new guidance based on COVID-19 lessons and innovations. There is a need to review recent evidence and update existing recommendations. Additionally, there is a need for guidance that addresses emerging technologies.