Key result
Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, and public insurance linked to ~44% lower odds of telemedicine video access.
Why the study?
The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid uptake of telemedicine for routine cardiovascular care, prompting investigation into predictors of telemedicine utilization among ambulatory cardiology patients.
What are the social determinants of telemedicine utilization in ambulatory cardiovascular patients during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Observational (n=8,446)
No
What are the social determinants of telemedicine utilization in ambulatory cardiovascular patients during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Odds Ratio: 0.56 (95% CI 0.35–0.94)
p-value: p=0.02
Significant racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities exist in access to telemedicine video visits for ambulatory cardiovascular care.
Disparities in video telemedicine access for Black, Hispanic, and publicly insured cardiovascular patients may widen gaps; leaves open effective equity interventions.
Aims The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in the rapid uptake of telemedicine (TM) for routine cardiovascular care. To examine the predictors of TM utilization among ambulatory cardiology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods and results In this single-centre retrospective study, all ambulatory cardiovascular encounters occurring between 16 March and 19 June 2020 were assessed. Baseline characteristics by visit type (in-person, TM phone, TM video) were compared using Chi-square and student t-tests, with statistical significance defined by P-value <0.05. Multivariate logistic regression was used to explore the predictors of TM vs. in-person care. A total of 8446 patients [86% Non-Hispanic (NH) White, 42% female, median age 66.8 ± 15.2 years] completed an ambulatory cardiovascular visit during the study period. TM phone (n = 4981, 61.5%) was the primary mode of ambulatory care followed by TM video (n = 2693, 33.2%). NH Black race [odds ratio (OR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.35–0.94; P-value = 0.02], Hispanic ethnicity (OR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.29–0.98; P = 0.04), public insurance (Medicaid OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.32–0.79; P = 0.003, Medicare OR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.47–0.89; P = 0.009), zip-code linked median household income of <$75 000, age >85 years, and patients with a diagnosis of heart failure were associated with reduced access to TM video encounters and a higher likelihood of in-person care. Conclusions Significant disparities in TM video access for ambulatory cardiovascular care exist among the elderly, lower income, as well as Black and Hispanic racial/ethnic groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brown et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Ambulatory cardiovascular disease (n=8,446). Sociodemographic factors (e.g., Non-Hispanic Black race) vs. Reference sociodemographic groups was evaluated on Telemedicine video encounters vs. in-person care (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.94, p=0.02). Non-Hispanic Black race (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.35-0.94; P=0.02), Hispanic ethnicity, and public insurance were associated with reduced access to telemedicine video encounters compared to in-person care.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: