"It depends:" a qualitative study on digital health academic-industry collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Academic-industry collaborations (AICs) are endorsed to alleviate challenges in digital health, but partnership experiences remain understudied. The qualitative study's objective investigated collaboration experiences between academic institutions and digital health companies. METHODS: A phenomenology methodology captured experiences of AICs, eliciting perspectives from academic researchers and industry affiliates (e.g., leadership, company investigators). Semi-structured interviews probed eligible collaborators about their experiences in digital health. Analysts coded and organized data into significant statements reaching thematic saturation. RESULTS: Participants (N=20) were interviewed from 6 academic institutions and 14 unique industry partners. Seven themes emerged: (I) Collaboration evolves with time, relationships, funding, and evidence; (II) Collaboration demands strong relationships and interpersonal dynamics; (III) Operational processes vary across collaborations; (IV) Collaboration climate and context matters; (V) Shared expectations lead to a better understanding of success; (VI) Overcoming challenges with recommendations; (VII) Collaboration may help navigate the global pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Digital health academic industry collaboration demands strong relationships, requiring flexible mechanisms of collaboration and cultural fit. Diverse models of collaboration exist and remain dependent on contextual factors. While no collaboration conquers all challenges in digital health, AICs may serve as a facilitator for improved digital health products, thus advancing science, promoting public health, and benefiting the economy.

Using Telehealth for Hospice Reauthorization Visits: Results of a Quality Improvement Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increasing hospice need, a growing shortage of hospice providers, and concerns about in-person services because of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) require hospices to innovate care delivery. MEASURES: This project compared outcomes between hospice reauthorization visits conducted via telehealth and in person. After each visit, providers, patients, and caregivers completed telehealth acceptance surveys, and providers recorded reauthorization recommendations. INTERVENTION: Providers conducted 88 concurrent in-person and telehealth visits between June and November 2019. OUTCOMES: No statistically significant differences in reauthorization recommendations were found between telehealth and in-person visits. Satisfaction with telehealth was high; 88% of patients/caregivers and 78% of providers found telehealth services as effective as in-person visits. CONCLUSIONS/LESSONS LEARNED: Results indicate that telehealth can successfully support clinical decision making for hospice reauthorization. These findings show telehealth to be reliable and acceptable for certain types of hospice care even before COVID-19, which emphasizes its importance both during and after the current public health emergency.