International journal of diabetes & metabolic syndrome最新文献

英文中文

Utilizing Telemedicine for Group Visit Provider Encounters: A Feasibility and Acceptability Study 利用远程医疗进行团体就诊:可行性和可接受性研究

International journal of diabetes & metabolic syndrome

Pub Date : 2020-08-02 DOI: 10.52106/2771-1331.1001

Tushar A Patel, C. Johnston, V. Cardenas, Elizabeth M. Vaughan

Background The value of telemedicine has been underscored during the coronavirus pandemic. Utilizing telemedicine could markedly enhance group visit scalability and sustainability. However, there are limited data demonstrating telemedicine use for group visits. Objective To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of provider encounters conducted via telemedicine in group visits. Materials and Methods We conducted a 6-month diabetes group visit program and compared in-person (months 1–3) versus telemedicine (videoconferencing) (months 4–6) patient-provider encounters. Participants completed the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ) at 6-months (primary outcome). To ensure telemedicine did not negatively affect clinical outcomes, we compared in-person versus telemedicine differences in HbA1c, blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), and attendance. Results The TUQ revealed that participants (N=19) found telemedicine useful and easy to use (4.9/5.0, 4.4/5.0, respectively) and with excellent interface (4.3/5.0), interaction (4.6/5.0), reliability (4.2/5.0), and satisfaction (4.4/5.0). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between arms: HbA1c (in-person: −0.60%, telemedicine: −0.52%, p=0.86), blood pressure (systolic: p=0.475, diastolic: p=0.683), weight (p=0.982), BMI (p=0.981), attendance (in-person: 75.44%, telemedicine: 70.12%, p=0.551). Conclusion Provider telemedicine encounters in group visits are feasible and acceptable. This is a promising model to address provider limitations in group visits and increase access to care. Larger studies are needed to further evaluate these findings.

在冠状病毒大流行期间，远程医疗的价值得到了强调。利用远程医疗可显著提高团体就诊的可扩展性和可持续性。然而，证明远程医疗用于团体就诊的数据有限。目的探讨在团体就诊中采用远程医疗方式就诊的可行性和可接受性。材料和方法我们进行了一个为期6个月的糖尿病小组访问项目，并比较了面对面(1-3个月)和远程医疗(视频会议)(4-6个月)患者与提供者的接触。参与者在6个月时完成了远程医疗可用性问卷(TUQ)(主要结果)。为了确保远程医疗不会对临床结果产生负面影响，我们比较了现场与远程医疗在HbA1c、血压、体重指数(BMI)和出勤方面的差异。结果19人认为远程医疗实用、易用(分别为4.9/5.0、4.4/5.0)、界面(4.3/5.0)、交互性(4.6/5.0)、可靠性(4.2/5.0)、满意度(4.4/5.0)较好。两组患者的临床结局无显著差异:HbA1c(面对面:- 0.60%，远程医疗:- 0.52%，p=0.86)、血压(收缩压:p=0.475，舒张压:p=0.683)、体重(p=0.982)、BMI (p=0.981)、出诊率(面对面:75.44%，远程医疗:70.12%，p=0.551)。结论小组就诊中远程医疗服务提供者会诊是可行的、可接受的。这是一种很有前途的模式，可以解决提供者在团体访问中的限制，并增加获得护理的机会。需要更大规模的研究来进一步评估这些发现。

{"title":"Utilizing Telemedicine for Group Visit Provider Encounters: A Feasibility and Acceptability Study","authors":"Tushar A Patel, C. Johnston, V. Cardenas, Elizabeth M. Vaughan","doi":"10.52106/2771-1331.1001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52106/2771-1331.1001","url":null,"abstract":"Background The value of telemedicine has been underscored during the coronavirus pandemic. Utilizing telemedicine could markedly enhance group visit scalability and sustainability. However, there are limited data demonstrating telemedicine use for group visits. Objective To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of provider encounters conducted via telemedicine in group visits. Materials and Methods We conducted a 6-month diabetes group visit program and compared in-person (months 1–3) versus telemedicine (videoconferencing) (months 4–6) patient-provider encounters. Participants completed the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ) at 6-months (primary outcome). To ensure telemedicine did not negatively affect clinical outcomes, we compared in-person versus telemedicine differences in HbA1c, blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), and attendance. Results The TUQ revealed that participants (N=19) found telemedicine useful and easy to use (4.9/5.0, 4.4/5.0, respectively) and with excellent interface (4.3/5.0), interaction (4.6/5.0), reliability (4.2/5.0), and satisfaction (4.4/5.0). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between arms: HbA1c (in-person: −0.60%, telemedicine: −0.52%, p=0.86), blood pressure (systolic: p=0.475, diastolic: p=0.683), weight (p=0.982), BMI (p=0.981), attendance (in-person: 75.44%, telemedicine: 70.12%, p=0.551). Conclusion Provider telemedicine encounters in group visits are feasible and acceptable. This is a promising model to address provider limitations in group visits and increase access to care. Larger studies are needed to further evaluate these findings.","PeriodicalId":93108,"journal":{"name":"International journal of diabetes & metabolic syndrome","volume":"54 1","pages":"1 - 6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82778586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Utilizing Telemedicine for Group Visit Provider Encounters: A Feasibility and Acceptability Study. 利用远程医疗进行团体就诊:可行性和可接受性研究。

International journal of diabetes & metabolic syndrome

Pub Date : 2020-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-08-02

Tushar A Patel, Craig A Johnston, Victor J Cardenas, Elizabeth M Vaughan

Background: The value of telemedicine has been underscored during the coronavirus pandemic. Utilizing telemedicine could markedly enhance group visit scalability and sustainability. However, there are limited data demonstrating telemedicine use for group visits.

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of provider encounters conducted via telemedicine in group visits.

Materials and methods: We conducted a 6-month diabetes group visit program and compared in-person (months 1-3) versus telemedicine (videoconferencing) (months 4-6) patient-provider encounters. Participants completed the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ) at 6-months (primary outcome). To ensure telemedicine did not negatively affect clinical outcomes, we compared in-person versus telemedicine differences in HbA1c, blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), and attendance.

Results: The TUQ revealed that participants (N=19) found telemedicine useful and easy to use (4.9/5.0, 4.4/5.0, respectively) and with excellent interface (4.3/5.0), interaction (4.6/5.0), reliability (4.2/5.0), and satisfaction (4.4/5.0). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between arms: HbA1c (in-person: -0.60%, telemedicine: -0.52%, p=0.86), blood pressure (systolic: p=0.475, diastolic: p=0.683), weight (p=0.982), BMI (p=0.981), attendance (in-person: 75.44%, telemedicine: 70.12%, p=0.551).

Conclusion: Provider telemedicine encounters in group visits are feasible and acceptable. This is a promising model to address provider limitations in group visits and increase access to care. Larger studies are needed to further evaluate these findings.

背景:在冠状病毒大流行期间，远程医疗的价值得到了强调。利用远程医疗可显著提高团体就诊的可扩展性和可持续性。然而，证明远程医疗用于团体就诊的数据有限。目的:评价在团体就诊中采用远程医疗方式就诊的可行性和可接受性。材料和方法:我们进行了一个为期6个月的糖尿病小组访问计划，并比较了面对面(1-3个月)和远程医疗(视频会议)(4-6个月)患者与提供者的接触。参与者在6个月时完成了远程医疗可用性问卷(TUQ)(主要结果)。为了确保远程医疗不会对临床结果产生负面影响，我们比较了现场与远程医疗在HbA1c、血压、体重指数(BMI)和出勤方面的差异。结果:TUQ结果显示，19名参与者认为远程医疗有用且易于使用(分别为4.9/5.0和4.4/5.0)，具有良好的界面(4.3/5.0)、交互(4.6/5.0)、可靠性(4.2/5.0)和满意度(4.4/5.0)。两组患者的临床结局无显著差异:HbA1c(面对面:-0.60%，远程医疗:-0.52%，p=0.86)、血压(收缩压:p=0.475，舒张压:p=0.683)、体重(p=0.982)、BMI (p=0.981)、出诊率(面对面:75.44%，远程医疗:70.12%，p=0.551)。结论:远程医疗会诊在团体就诊中是可行且可接受的。这是一种很有前途的模式，可以解决提供者在团体访问中的限制，并增加获得护理的机会。需要更大规模的研究来进一步评估这些发现。

{"title":"Utilizing Telemedicine for Group Visit Provider Encounters: A Feasibility and Acceptability Study.","authors":"Tushar A Patel, Craig A Johnston, Victor J Cardenas, Elizabeth M Vaughan","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"Background: The value of telemedicine has been underscored during the coronavirus pandemic. Utilizing telemedicine could markedly enhance group visit scalability and sustainability. However, there are limited data demonstrating telemedicine use for group visits.Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of provider encounters conducted via telemedicine in group visits.Materials and methods: We conducted a 6-month diabetes group visit program and compared in-person (months 1-3) versus telemedicine (videoconferencing) (months 4-6) patient-provider encounters. Participants completed the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ) at 6-months (primary outcome). To ensure telemedicine did not negatively affect clinical outcomes, we compared in-person versus telemedicine differences in HbA1c, blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), and attendance.Results: The TUQ revealed that participants (N=19) found telemedicine useful and easy to use (4.9/5.0, 4.4/5.0, respectively) and with excellent interface (4.3/5.0), interaction (4.6/5.0), reliability (4.2/5.0), and satisfaction (4.4/5.0). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between arms: HbA1c (in-person: -0.60%, telemedicine: -0.52%, p=0.86), blood pressure (systolic: p=0.475, diastolic: p=0.683), weight (p=0.982), BMI (p=0.981), attendance (in-person: 75.44%, telemedicine: 70.12%, p=0.551).Conclusion: Provider telemedicine encounters in group visits are feasible and acceptable. This is a promising model to address provider limitations in group visits and increase access to care. Larger studies are needed to further evaluate these findings.","PeriodicalId":93108,"journal":{"name":"International journal of diabetes & metabolic syndrome","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7514109/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38427278","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

International journal of diabetes & metabolic syndrome

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀