Factors associated to patients' referral to public or private Covid-19 healthcare centers in Tabriz, Iran.

BACKGROUND: In Iran, tracking of patients and its associated data recording in private healthcare centers are poor, and thus a majority of patients suffering from Covid-19 are treated without any control on the isolation and quarantine processes. The present study aims to investigate the factors contributed to referral to private or public healthcare centers that provide Covid-19 care services. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2021 to January 2022 in Tabriz, Iran. We invited a total of 258 and 202Covid-19 patients from governmental and private healthcare centers, respectively, to participate in the study by convenient sampling method. Applying a self-administered questionnaire, we collected data on the reason of referring to the healthcare centers, patient's waiting time, quality of healthcare services received by the patients, patients' level of satisfaction, accessibility, insurance coverage, perceived severity of the disease, and the level of staff compliance from health protocols. Logistic regression model was used for data analysis by using SPSS-26 software. RESULTS: Adjusted for other variables, higher socio-economic status (AOR (Adjusted Odds Ratio) = 6.64), older age (AOR = 1.02), referral of friends and family members (AOR = 1.52), shorter waiting time (AOR = 1.02) and higher satisfaction (AOR = 1.02) were contributed to referral to private centers. Better accessibility (AOR = 0.98) and wider insurance coverage (AOR = 0.99) were also contributed to referral to governmental centers. CONCLUSION: Providing more appropriate insurance coverage by private healthcare centers, and promoting their level of accessibility seems to promote patients' referral to such centers. Moreover, establishing an accurate system for recording patients' information and follow up in private centers might promote the role of private healthcare centers in managing the overload of patients on healthcare system during such epidemics.

Acceptability of virtual prenatal care: thinking beyond the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Obstetrical providers have had to rapidly rethink how to provide comprehensive prenatal care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. At our institution, we implemented a risk-stratified approach to incorporating telemedicine into our prenatal care. The objective of this study was to determine acceptability of virtual prenatal care and preferences for future pregnancies among our patient population. STUDY DESIGN: We sought feedback from a convenience sample of patients regarding the acceptability of virtual prenatal care and desires for future pregnancies. RESULTS: We found that virtual prenatal care is acceptable to patients, and the majority would like to incorporate it into future post-pandemic pregnancy care, although preferences differ by race. CONCLUSION: Virtual prenatal care should continue to be employed in post-pandemic obstetric practice. Obstetrical providers must determine how to incorporate this practice in a risk-stratified and equitable fashion.

Willingness to Pay and Preferences Among Patients Undergoing Cystoscopies: Results from a Large Survey-Based Study in Spain.

Purpose: Cystoscopy procedures can cause distress among patients. Patient perspectives on health services are essential inputs in decision-making. This study investigated the patient preferences in Spain regarding single-use cystoscopes (SUC) compared to reusable cystoscopes and their willingness to pay (WTP) for cystoscopy procedures. Patients and Methods: Between May and June 2021, an anonymous survey was distributed to Spanish patients who had previously undergone a cystoscopy. The survey included patient preference measures on reusable cystoscopes compared to SUCs and a discrete choice experiment. The survey was distributed through a human data science company (IQVIA), collected using an online survey tool (QuestionPro®), and analyzed using Stata/MP, StataCorp. Results: Of 300 respondents, 148 (49.33%) were female and 150 (50%) were male, and mainly between 18-49 years (247, 82.33%). Most (265, 88%) preferred to have their procedure performed with a SUC rather than a reusable cystoscope. Among these patients, 215 (80%) could imagine asking their doctor to use a SUC. A total of 231 (77%) respondents indicated an increased level of concern about the risk of exposure to contamination related to their cystoscopy following the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients would pay 62 EUR to have their initial consultation and cystoscopy procedure on the same day (p < 0.001), 59 EUR to reduce the environmental impact, and 57 EUR to reduce the risk of contamination (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients prefer to undergo cystoscopy using an SUC on the same day as their initial consultation. The increased contamination concerns due to the COVID-19 pandemic and WTP to reduce the risk of cystoscope contamination may explain patients' preferences for SUCs. The most important attributes related to their cystoscopy procedure are the ability to have their procedure performed on the same day as their initial consultation, the reduction of the environmental impact, and the reduction of the contamination risk.

Patient perspectives of telemedicine in gynecologic oncology during COVID.

Objectives: Healthcare rapidly expanded the use of telemedicine during the COVID- 19 pandemic. Research regarding telemedicine benefits and patient perspectives during COVID are limited. The aim of this study was to determine how the pandemic impacted patient perspectives and value of telemedicine in gynecologic oncology. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to patients presenting for an appointment to the gynecologic oncology ambulatory clinic. The survey assessed patient demographics, frequency of technology use, and preferences of telemedicine use in their care. Descriptive statistics were generated and Pearson's chi square and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for statistical analysis. Results: 116 patients completed the survey. Respondent age range was 20-70 years old. Most respondents (80 %) had a cancer diagnosis. Nearly all (91 %) patients had access to online medical records via an online portal. Increased use of technology was not associated with agreeing to a telemedicine visit. Only 36 % stated they would feel comfortable with a telemedicine visit with a gynecologic oncologist. Patients were more willing to agree to video rather than telephone visits (41.8 % vs 24.5 %). The pandemic did not affect patient comfort level with telemedicine. Conclusions: Despite increased use and overall favorable impression, patients were not more eager to participate in telemedicine during the pandemic. Patients are open to incorporating telemedicine more often in follow up settings.

Patient Preferences Regarding Telemedicine to In-person Consultation: A Questionnaire-Based Survey.

Introduction: Telemedicine has been evolving over the last two decades; however, with the advent of the COVID 19 pandemic, its utility and acceptance have drastically increased. Most studies report increasing acceptability and satisfaction rates. This study aimed to assess patient preferences regarding telemedicine to in-person consultations and to attempt to assess the factors driving these preferences. Material and Methods: A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was conducted for patients who had both teleconsultation and in-person consultation in the orthopedic outpatient. After obtaining consent to participate in the study, the patients were divided into broad clinical categories and responses were recorded regarding the treatment of illness by the doctor and opinions regarding telemedicine. Most questions were in yes/no or a Likert-based questionnaire. Mean, median, percentage and proportions were used for statistical analysis of the data. Results: The study group included 264 patients, with the majority with fractures and dislocations. Most patients (55.7%) were comfortable using the software for teleconsultation, and half the respondents found telemedicine convenient. A large percentage of the study group preferred in-person consultation to teleconsultation (58.7%), and the primary reasons for discontinuing teleconsultation were dissatisfaction during the interaction with the doctor and poor connectivity to telecommunication networks. Conclusion: Telecommunication has high acceptance and satisfaction, but many factors limit its acceptance in developing countries.

Physician Perspectives on Telemedicine in Radiation Oncology

Telemedicine enthusiasm and uptake in radiation oncology rapidly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is unclear if and how telemedicine should be utilized after the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) ends. Despite ongoing COVID-19 risks and public payer support for telemedicine, several private payers have stopped reimbursing telemedicine weekly see video visits. We performed a large single-institution assessment of provider perspectives on telemedicine after we had achieved a more mature level of adoption to better understand factors considered when determining to use telemedicine and to estimate the percent of visits that could be safely performed with telemedicine. We distributed a survey to all radiation oncology attendings at our large academic institution in October 2021 to assess satisfaction, facilitators, and barriers to telemedicine implementation. We performed quantitative and qualitative analyses to characterize satisfaction and to identify factors influencing whether telemedicine is employed. For the qualitative analysis, two authors independently coded open-ended survey responses and identified categories and themes following established content analysis methodology. We calculated the average proportion of visits that providers expected could be appropriately performed with telemedicine without a clinically significant decline in the quality of care for each disease site and visit type. 60 of 82 eligible radiation oncologists (73%) responded to the survey. 78% of respondents were satisfied with telemedicine in the radiation oncology department, and 83% wished to continue offering video visits after the COVID-19 PHE ends. Common reasons providers endorsed for wanting to integrate telemedicine into practice included: patient and provider preference, increased access to care and clinical trials, allowing for greater relationship with the care team, and improved clinical safety, efficiency, and quality. Patient factors influencing whether physicians offer telemedicine included the patient's travel burden, patient preferences, and whether a physical exam is required. About 20% of new consultations and 50% of weekly management visits were estimated to be clinically appropriate for telemedicine. Central Nervous System/Pediatrics and Thoracic faculty considered telemedicine appropriate for the greatest proportion (50%) of new consultations. 93% of respondents felt comfortable determining whether telemedicine was appropriate. Surveyed radiation oncologists were satisfied with telemedicine in their practice and wished to continue offering video visits in the future. Although provider perceptions of clinical appropriateness of telemedicine varied widely based on disease site and visit type, providers felt comfortable determining when telemedicine would be appropriate for patients. Our data suggest payers should continue to support this patient-centered technology. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics is the property of Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Stated choice analysis of preferences for COVID-19 vaccines using the Choquet integral.

We investigate preferences for COVID-19 vaccines using data from a stated choice survey conducted in the US in March 2021. To analyse the data, we embed the Choquet integral, a flexible aggregation operator for capturing attribute interactions under monotonicity constraints, into a mixed logit model. We find that effectiveness is the most important vaccine attribute, followed by risk of severe side effects and protection period. The attribute interactions reveal that non-pecuniary vaccine attributes are synergistic. Out-of-pocket costs are independent of effectiveness, incubation period, and mild side effects but exhibit moderate synergistic interactions with other attributes. Vaccine adoption is significantly more likely among individuals who identify as male, have obtained a bachelor's degree or a higher level of education, have a high household income, support the democratic party, had COVID-19, got vaccinated against the flu in winter 2020/21, and have an underlying health condition.

Development of a Quantitative Instrument to Elicit Patient Preferences for Person-Centered Dementia Care Stage 1: A Formative Qualitative Study to Identify Patient Relevant Criteria for Experimental Design of an Analytic Hierarchy Process.

Background: Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. This formative qualitative study aimed to identify (sub)criteria of PCC for the design of a quantitative, choice-based instrument to elicit patient preferences for person-centered dementia care. Method: Interviews were conducted with n = 2 dementia care managers, n = 10 People living with Dementia (PlwD), and n = 3 caregivers (CGs), which followed a semi-structured interview guide including a card game with PCC criteria identified from the literature. Criteria cards were shown to explore the PlwD's conception. PlwD were asked to rank the cards to identify patient-relevant criteria of PCC. Audios were verbatim-transcribed and analyzed with qualitative content analysis. Card game results were coded on a 10-point-scale, and sums and means for criteria were calculated. Results: Six criteria with two sub-criteria emerged from the analysis; social relationships (indirect contact, direct contact), cognitive training (passive, active), organization of care (decentralized structures and no shared decision making, centralized structures and shared decision making), assistance with daily activities (professional, family member), characteristics of care professionals (empathy, education and work experience) and physical activities (alone, group). Dementia-sensitive wording and balance between comprehensibility vs. completeness of the (sub)criteria emerged as additional themes. Conclusions: Our formative study provides initial data about patient-relevant criteria of PCC to design a quantitative patient preference instrument. Future research may want to consider the balance between (sub)criteria comprehensibility vs. completeness.

The impact of COVID-19 on soft contact lens wear in established European and US markets.

PURPOSE: To characterise changes in soft contact lens wearing habits during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A detailed online questionnaire was circulated to individuals aged 40-70 years, during the period April to May 2021. Data sampling took place in the United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. Only data pertaining to individuals who were soft contact lens wearers were included. Data were extracted for questions relating to contact lens wearing habits pre- and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and expectations for future lens wear beyond the pandemic. RESULTS: Seven-hundred and twenty-eight individuals were identified as soft contact lens wearers of which six-hundred and nineteen wore a combination of contact lenses and spectacles. Most respondents indicated contact lens wear times had either remained the same (57.3%) or increased (9.8%) during the pandemic. The country with the greatest proportion of respondents decreasing wear time during COVID-19 was the UK (45.3%), and the least in the Netherlands (20.0%). The primary cause of decreased lens wear was attributed to leaving the home less often (70.0%), and the second most common reason due to concerns about hygiene (10.8%). Most respondents (83.9%), however, expressed a desire to return to pre-pandemic wear times once the pandemic was over. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioner concerns about contact lens market recovery ought to be assuaged by the survey outcomes which show most individuals to have maintained lens wear during the pandemic. In view of the continued lens wear, as and when restrictions ease, ECPs may wish to encourage patients to return for routine check-ups that may have been missed due to the pandemic.

Patient Preferences: An Unexplored Area in the Post-Pandemic Era

The rapid advancement of clinical research has resulted into numerous therapeutic options currently available for most of the diseases. During the patient therapeutic journey, many health-related decisions are necessary requiring patients to choose between the potential health benefits of an intervention, versus the countervailing risk of serious adverse health outcomes. Studies focusing exactly on those patient preferences aim to elicit preferences with the common objective to generate information that facilitates comparing the importance of attributes of interest. The world has experienced a dramatic change in patient's preferences during the pandemic. Despite the importance of patient preference studies in healthcare decision making, there is a lack of effective storage and accessibility of relevant data for wider use. In this paper the authors present the design of a platform to systematically collect, curate, annotate, index, synthesize and make available pertinent information of patient preference studies so that they can be further exploited by decision support tools. © 2021 IEEE.

Factors Affecting Young Adults' Decision Making to Undergo COVID-19 Vaccination: A Patient Preference Study.

Young adults are a substantial driver of lagging vaccination against COVID-19 worldwide. We aimed to understand what vaccine or vaccination environment attributes may affect young adults' vaccine inclination. We contacted a convenience sample of 1415 students to recruit a minimum of 150 individuals for a web-based discrete choice experiment. The respondents were asked to choose one of two hypothetical vaccines, defined by six attributes-vaccine efficacy, risk of mild side effects, protection duration, administration route, recommender, and travel time to the vaccination site. Individual preferences were calculated with the Markov chain Monte Carlo hierarchical Bayes estimation. A total of 445 individuals (mean age 24.4 years, 272 (61.1%) women) completed the survey between 22 March and 3 May 2021. Vaccine protection duration (28.3 (95% CI, 27.0-29.6)) and vaccine efficacy in preventing COVID-19 (27.5 (95% CI, 26.3-28.8)) were the most important, followed by the risk of vaccine side effects (17.3 (95% CI, 16.2-18.4)). Individuals reluctant or unsure about vaccination (21.1%) prioritized the potential for mild side effects higher and vaccine efficacy lower than the vaccine-inclined individuals. New vaccination programs that target young adults should emphasize the protection duration, low risk of vaccine side effects, and high efficacy.

Severe Asthma, Telemedicine, and Self-Administered Therapy: Listening First to the Patient.

Severe asthma patients are at an increased risk of major complications and they need to be monitored regularly. The COVID-19 pandemic has notably impacted on the health care resources. The telemedicine approach applied to the follow-up of asthmatic patients has been proven to be effective in monitoring their disease and their adherence to the therapy. The aim of our study was to investigate the satisfaction of severe asthma patients before the activation of a telemedicine management, as well as their current experience with self-administration of injection therapy. An ad hoc questionnaire was developed and sent by e-mail to 180 severe asthma patients. Most of subjects, 82%, were confident with the idea of doing self-measurements and self-managing their disease. Further, 77% of subjects favoured to carry out virtual visits and telemedicine. Regarding the home treatment, 93% of patients considered the self-injection therapy easy, 94% of subjects felt safe, and 93% were not worried while self-administering. Only mild adverse events were reported in 22% of patients after self-administration. Our results showed an agreement between what is considered necessary and practicable by healthcare personnel and what is perceived by the severe asthma patients in terms of treatment and monitoring of the disease with Telehealth. Biologics have a safety profile and can be easily self-administred at home.

Oncology patients' communication experiences during COVID-19: comparing telehealth consultations to in-person visits.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic created significant disruptions in cancer care, much of which was transitioned to telehealth. Because telehealth alters the way clinicians and patients interact with one another, this investigation examined patients' perceptions of their communication with clinicians during the pandemic. METHOD: Patients were recruited from the Cancer Support Community, Fight Colorectal Cancer, and a market research firm to participate in an online survey. In addition to demographic and health-related information, respondents completed measures of patient-centered communication and evaluated how their communication in telehealth sessions compared with in-person visits. RESULTS: From October to December 2020, 227 respondents (65.6% female, 64.6% Non-Hispanic White, 33.5% had 6 or more telehealth sessions, 55% were 50 or older) reported having some of their cancer care provided via telehealth. Respondents who were of racial/ethnic minorities, male, had more telehealth sessions, or had poorer mental health reported less patient-centered communication with clinicians. Most patients thought communication in telehealth sessions was "about the same" as in-person visits with respect to good communication (59%). However, patients thinking communication in telehealth sessions was "better" than in-person visits were more likely to be Hispanic (49%), Non-Hispanic Black (41%), under 50 years of age (32%), male (40%), and had more telehealth sessions (34%). CONCLUSION: Respondents reporting less patient-centered communication during the pandemic-e.g., persons of racial/ethnic minorities and males-were also more likely to evaluate communication in telehealth sessions as better than in-person visits. Further research is needed to understand reasons underlying this finding. Cancer care clinicians should take into account patient preferences regarding telehealth care, which may be particularly important for racial and ethnic minority patients.

The Advance Care Compass- A New Mechanics for Digitally Transforming Advance Directives.

Advance directives allow people to declare their treatment preferences for a potential future state of incompetency. Covid-19, with its high numbers of quickly deteriorating patients requiring intensive care, has acutely demonstrated how helpful it would be for clinicians to have reliable, readily available, up-to-date information at hand to be able to act in accordance with what the individual patient would have wanted. Yet for the past few decades advance directives have fallen short of their potential, for various reasons. At worst, advance directives are perceived as unwieldy legal documents that put excessive demands on patients without providing useful guidance for better care. Recent efforts such as advance care planning have tried to remedy some of these shortcomings but have so far met with limited success. We suggest a new concept-the Advance Care Compass-that harnesses the potential of digitalization in healthcare to overcome many of difficulties encountered so far.

A qualitative investigation into the results of a discrete choice experiment and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for virtual consultations.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a qualitative investigation on a subset of participants from a previously completed Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to understand why factors identified from the DCE are important, how they influenced preference for virtual consultations (VC) and how COVID-19 has influenced preference for VC. METHODS: A quota sample was recruited from participants who participated in our DCE. We specifically targeted participants who were strongly in favour of face-to-face consultations (F2F - defined as choosing all or mostly F2F in the DCE) or strongly in favour of virtual consultations (VC - defined as choosing all or mostly VC consultations in the DCE) to elicit a range of views. Interviews were conducted via telephone or videoconference, audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and uploaded into NVIVO software. A directed content analysis of transcripts was undertaken in accordance with a coding framework based on the results of the DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on preference. RESULTS: Eight F2F and 5 VC participants were included. Shorter appointments were less 'worth' travelling in for than a longer appointment and rush hour travel had an effect on whether travelling was acceptable, particularly when patients experienced pain as a result of extended journeys. Socioeconomic factors such as cost of travel, paid time off work, access to equipment and support in its use was important. Physical examinations were preferable in the clinic whereas talking therapies were acceptable over VC. Several participants commented on how VC interferes with the patient-clinician relationship. VC during COVID-19 has provided patients with the opportunity to access their care virtually without the need for travel. For some, this was extremely positive. CONCLUSIONS: This study investigated the results of a previously completed DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for VC. Theoretically informative insights were gained to explain the results of the DCE. The use of VC during the COVID-19 pandemic provided opportunities to access care without the need for face-to-face social interactions. Many felt that VC would become more commonplace after the pandemic, whereas others were keen to return to F2F consultations as much as possible. This qualitative study provides additional context to the results of a previously completed DCE.

Understanding Preferences Toward Virtual Care: A Pre-COVID Mixed Methods Study Exploring the Perspectives of Patients with Chronic Liver Disease.

Background: Traditionally, outpatient visits for those with chronic liver disease (CLD) have been delivered in-person with the patient traveling to a centralized location to see the health care provider. The use of virtual care in health care delivery has been gaining popularity across a variety of patient populations, especially within the COVID-19 context. Performed before COVID-19, the aim of the present study was to explore the perspectives of patients with CLD toward the use of virtual care with their liver specialists. Methods: A cross-sectional, mixed methods study was used to conduct this work. Results: A total of 101 patients with CLD participated in this study. Participants had a mean age of 54.5 years (range 19-87 years). Quantitative analysis revealed that 86% were willing to attend a virtual visit with their liver specialist in the future. There was a significant relationship between both age and income level and acceptance of virtual care. The themes emerging from the qualitative analysis included: (1) past experiences attending in-person visits, (2) perspectives on the use of virtual visits, and (3) perceived challenges of virtual visits. Conclusions: Although there are many potential benefits of virtual care to both the patient and the health care system, there are instances (older age, low income level) when in-person care may be preferred by patients. A tailored approach that is mindful of the individual patient's health status, ease of access to technology, and preferences must be considered when offering virtual care. These findings are of particular relevance during COVID-19, an era that has forced us into the virtual space.

Mandatory vaccination support and intentions to get vaccinated for COVID-19: Results from a nationally representative general population survey in October 2020 in Greece.

OBJECTIVES: To explore rates and factors associated with mandatory vaccination support overall and intentions to get vaccinated specifically for COVID-19 among individuals in Greece. METHODS: Using data from a nationally representative cross-sectional survey conducted in October 2020 among 855 adults (≥18 years) in Greece, we estimated support rates for mandatory vaccination and respondents' intention to get vaccinated for COVID-19 as well as associations thereof with individual sociodemographic, clinical and contextual characteristics. RESULTS: About 74% of respondents supported mandatory vaccination and 62% intended to get vaccinated for COVID-19. The most prevalent reasons against COVID-19 vaccination were safety concerns related to the duration of clinical trials and potential side effects. Individuals who reported increased trust in healthcare authorities' recommendations, who revealed that their trust in the State increased due to the way the COVID-19 pandemic was handled, who used preventive services more often, and those with higher income were more likely to both support mandatory vaccination and to indicate intention to get vaccinated for COVID-19. Participants with worse or better self-reported health status (compared to average), younger adults, and females were less likely to intend to get vaccinated for COVID-19. CONCLUSION: The survey revealed that the majority of the Greek citizens favour mandatory vaccination overall and intend to get vaccinated for COVID-19, driven mostly by utilization of preventive services and trust in healthcare authorities. However, intention to get vaccinated for COVID-19 was lower relative to mandatory vaccination support. This suggests a need to intensify evidence-based yet simplified messaging by esteemed healthcare providers to inform the public on the risks and benefits of vaccines.

Telemedicine for head and neck cancer surveillance in the COVID-19 era: Promise and pitfalls.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to increased telemedicine visits. This study examines current preferences and barriers for telemedicine among patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS: Single institution retrospective analysis of 64 patients scheduling visits with the head and neck surgical oncology clinic at a tertiary academic medical center. Data were collected detailing patient preferences and barriers regarding telemedicine appointments. Patients electing to participate in telemedicine were compared to those preferring in-person appointments. RESULTS: Most patients (68%) were not interested in telemedicine. Preference for in-person examination was the most common reason for rejecting telemedicine, followed by discomfort with or limited access to technology. Patients elected telemedicine visits to avoid infection and for convenience. CONCLUSIONS: When given a choice, patients with head and neck cancer preferred in-person visits over telemedicine. Although telemedicine may improve health care access, patient preferences, technology-related barriers, and limitations regarding cancer surveillance must be addressed moving forward.