Survey of paediatric telehealth benefits from the caregiver perspective.

Objective This study determined caregivers' evaluations of telehealth consultations for their child, preference over in-person consultations and potential cost savings by child condition, family socioeconomic status and location. Methods A survey was conducted of 2436 caregivers attending a telehealth consultation with their child for a broad group of conditions between 3 June and 25 August 2020 at a tertiary paediatric hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Results Most caregivers found telehealth consultations convenient, acceptable, safe and private, and capable of answering their questions and concerns. However, caregivers who spoke a language other than English and patients attending for behavioural and mental health, developmental or other (e.g. allied health) concerns were more likely to prefer in-person consultations over telehealth. Mean (±s.d.) reported cost savings on caregiver time were A$144.98 ± 99.04 per family per consultation, whereas mean (±s.d.) transport cost savings were A$84.90 ± 100.74 per family per consultation. Cost savings were greatest for families living in low and middle socioeconomic areas and regional or rural areas. Conclusions Paediatric telehealth video consultations were largely viewed favourably by caregivers, except for those attending for behavioural and mental health or developmental concerns. What is known about the topic? Adult consumers of telehealth consultations view them as useful, convenient and cost saving, but less is known about caregivers' evaluations of telehealth consultations and potential cost savings for paediatric patients, and whether these differ by family location, socioeconomic status or child condition. What does this paper add? This is the first Australian paper to report on caregivers' evaluations across a range of paediatric conditions and locations. Most caregivers found telehealth consultations convenient, safe, acceptable, able to answer their questions and concerns about their child's health and cost saving. What are the implications for practitioners? Caregivers of children with behavioural, mental health or developmental problems were less likely to prefer telehealth over in-person consultations, so practitioners should consider providing such consultations in person.

Patient preferences using telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic in four Victorian tertiary hospital services.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a major impact on healthcare services with many changes to telehealth care delivery. More information is needed about the patient perspective of telehealth in hospital services and the potential costs and benefits for patients. AIM: To measure patients' evaluation of telehealth, preferences for telehealth versus in-person appointments, and potential cost savings by patient characteristics. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey (including patient and appointment characteristics, telehealth evaluation, preferences for care and costs) of adult patients using video telehealth in four metropolitan tertiary hospital services in Melbourne, Victoria. RESULTS: A total of 1045 patients (median age 44 years; interquartile range 29-59) participated with an overall response rate of 9.2%. For 98.7% patients, telehealth was convenient, 96.4% stated that it saved time, 95.9% found telehealth acceptable to receive care and 97.0% found that telehealth improved their access to care. Most (62.6%) preferred in-person consultations, although 86.9% agreed that telehealth was equivalent to an in-person consultation. Those in regional and rural areas were less likely to prefer in-person consultations. Patients attending for medical reasons were less likely to prefer in-person consultation compared with patients with surgical reasons. Patient preference to telehealth was independent of level of education, appointment type, self-rated health status and socio economic status. Patients saved an average of A$120.9 (standard deviation A$93.0) per appointment, with greater cost savings for patients from low and middle socio economic areas and regional or rural areas. CONCLUSION: Telehealth video consultations were largely evaluated positively with most patients considering the service to be as good as in-person. Understanding patient preference is critical to consider when implementing telehealth as mainstream across hospital health services.

Citizens from 13 countries share similar preferences for COVID-19 vaccine allocation priorities.

How does the public want a COVID-19 vaccine to be allocated? We conducted a conjoint experiment asking 15,536 adults in 13 countries to evaluate 248,576 profiles of potential vaccine recipients who varied randomly on five attributes. Our sample includes diverse countries from all continents. The results suggest that in addition to giving priority to health workers and to those at high risk, the public favors giving priority to a broad range of key workers and to those with lower income. These preferences are similar across respondents of different education levels, incomes, and political ideologies, as well as across most surveyed countries. The public favored COVID-19 vaccines being allocated solely via government programs but were highly polarized in some developed countries on whether taking a vaccine should be mandatory. There is a consensus among the public on many aspects of COVID-19 vaccination, which needs to be taken into account when developing and communicating rollout strategies.

Modifiable lifestyle factors and severe COVID-19 risk: a Mendelian randomisation study.

BACKGROUND: Lifestyle factors including obesity and smoking are suggested to be correlated with increased risk of COVID-19 severe illness or related death. However, whether these relationships are causal is not well known; neither for the relationships between COVID-19 severe illness and other common lifestyle factors, such as physical activity and alcohol consumption. METHODS: Genome-wide significant genetic variants associated with body mass index (BMI), lifetime smoking, physical activity and alcohol consumption identified by large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of up to 941,280 individuals were selected as instrumental variables. Summary statistics of the genetic variants on severe illness of COVID-19 were obtained from GWAS analyses of up to 6492 cases and 1,012,809 controls. Two-sample Mendelian randomisation analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Both per-standard deviation (SD) increase in genetically predicted BMI and lifetime smoking were associated with about two-fold increased risks of severe respiratory COVID-19 and COVID-19 hospitalization (all P < 0.05). Per-SD increase in genetically predicted physical activity was associated with decreased risks of severe respiratory COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05, 0.74; P = 0.02), but not with COVID-19 hospitalization (OR = 0.44; 95% CI 0.18, 1.07; P = 0.07). No evidence of association was found for genetically predicted alcohol consumption. Similar results were found across robust Mendelian randomisation methods. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is found that BMI and smoking causally increase and physical activity might causally decrease the risk of COVID-19 severe illness. This study highlights the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle in protecting from COVID-19 severe illness and its public health value in fighting against COVID-19 pandemic.