Search

In this systematic review, we compared the effectiveness of telehealth with in-person care during the pandemic using PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from March 2020 to April 2023. We included English-language, U.S.-healthcare relevant studies comparing telehealth with in-person care conducted after the onset of the pandemic. Two reviewers independently screened search results, serially extracted data, and independently assessed the risk of bias and strength of evidence. We identified 77 studies, the majority of which (47, 61%) were judged to have a serious or high risk of bias. Differences, if any, in healthcare utilization and clinical outcomes between in-person and telehealth care were generally small and/or not clinically meaningful and varied across the type of outcome and clinical area. For process outcomes, there was a mostly lower rate of missed visits and changes in therapy/medication and higher rates of therapy/medication adherence among patients receiving an initial telehealth visit compared with those receiving in-person care. However, the rates of up-to-date labs/paraclinical assessment were also lower among patients receiving an initial telehealth visit compared with those receiving in-person care. Most studies lacked a standardized approach to assessing outcomes. While we refrain from making an overall conclusion about the performance of telehealth versus in-person visits the use of telehealth is comparable to in-person care across a variety of outcomes and clinical areas. As we transition through the COVID-19 era, models for integrating telehealth with traditional care become increasingly important, and ongoing evaluations of telehealth will be particularly valuable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigated the role of both individual-level social needs and community-level social determinants of health (SDOH) in explaining emergency department (ED) utilization rates. We also assessed the potential synergies between the two levels of analysis and their combined effect on patterns of ED visits. We extracted electronic health record (EHR) data between July 2016 and June 2020 for 1,308,598 unique Maryland residents who received care at Johns Hopkins Health System, of which 28,937 (2.2%) patients had at least one documented social need. There was a negative correlation between median household income in a neighborhood with having a social need such as financial resource strain, food insecurity, and residential instability (correlation coefficient: -0.05, -0.01, and − 0.06, p = 0, respectively). In a multilevel model with random effects after adjusting for other factors, living in a more disadvantaged neighborhood was found to be significantly associated with ED utilization statewide and within Baltimore City (OR: 1.005, 95% CI: 1.003–1.007 and 1.020, 95% CI: 1.017–1.022, respectively). However, individual-level social needs appeared to enhance the statewide effect of living in a more disadvantaged neighborhood with the OR for the interaction term between social needs and SDOH being larger, and more positive, than SDOH alone (OR: 1.012, 95% CI: 1.011–1.014). No such moderation was found in Baltimore City. To our knowledge, this study is one of the first attempts by a major academic healthcare system to assess the combined impact of patient-level social needs in association with community-level SDOH on healthcare utilization and can serve as a baseline for future studies using EHR data linked to population-level data to assess such synergistic association. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed to empirically measure the degree to which there is a "digital divide" in terms of access to the internet at the small-area community level within the State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore and to assess the relationship and association of this divide with community-level SDOH risk factors, community-based social service agency location, and web-mediated support service seeking behavior. To assess the socio-economic characteristics of the neighborhoods across the state, we calculated the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) using the U.S. Census, American Community Survey (5-year estimates) of 2017. To assess the digital divide, at the community level, we used the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) data on the number of residential fixed Internet access service connections. We assessed the availability of and web-based access to community-based social service agencies using data provided by the "Aunt Bertha" information platform. We performed community and regional level descriptive and special analyses for ADI social risk factors, connectivity, and both the availability of and web-based searches for community-based social services. To help assess potential neighborhood linked factors associated with the rates of web-based social services searches by individuals in need, we applied logistic regression using generalized estimating equation modeling. Baltimore City contained more disadvantaged neighborhoods compared to other areas in Maryland. In Baltimore City, 20.3% of neighborhoods (defined by census block groups) were disadvantaged with ADI at the 90th percentile while only 6.6% of block groups across Maryland were in this disadvantaged category. Across the State, more than half of all census tracts had 801–1000 households (per 1000 households) with internet subscription. In contrast, in Baltimore City about half of all census tracts had only 401–600 of the households (per 1000 households) with internet subscriptions. Most block groups in Maryland and Baltimore City lacked access to social services facilities (61% of block groups at the 90th percentile of disadvantage in Maryland and 61.3% of block groups at the 90th percentile of disadvantage in Baltimore City). After adjusting for other variables, a 1% increase in the ADI measure of social disadvantage, resulting in a 1.7% increase in the number of individuals seeking social services. While more work is needed, our findings support the premise that the digital divide is closely associated with other SDOH factors. The policymakers must propose policies to address the digital divide on a national level and also in disadvantaged communities experiencing the digital divide in addition to other SDOH challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]