Assessment of Patient Preferences for Telehealth in Post-COVID-19 Pandemic Health Care.

Importance: Telehealth use greatly increased in 2020 during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient preferences for telehealth or in-person care are an important factor in defining the role of telehealth in the postpandemic world. Objective: To ascertain patient preferences for video visits after the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency and to identify patient perceptions of the value of video visits and the role of out-of-pocket cost in changing patient preference for each visit modality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study was conducted using a nationally representative sample of adult members of the RAND American Life Panel. The data were obtained from the American Life Panel Omnibus Survey, which was fielded between March 8 and 19, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Preferences for video visits vs in-person care were analyzed in the survey. The first question was about participants' baseline preference for an in-person or a video visit for a nonemergency health issue. The second question entailed choosing between the preferred visit modality with a cost of $30 and another modality with a cost of $10. Questions also involved demographic characteristics, experience with video visits, willingness to use video visits, and preferences for the amount of telehealth use after the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: A total of 2080 of 3391 sampled panel members completed the survey (participation rate, 61.3%). Participants in the weighted sample had a mean (SE) age of 51.1 (0.67) years and were primarily women (1079 [51.9%]). Most participants (66.5%) preferred at least some video visits in the future, but when faced with a choice between an in-person or a video visit for a health care encounter that could be conducted either way, more than half of respondents (53.0%) preferred an in-person visit. Among those who initially preferred an in-person visit when out-of-pocket costs were not a factor, 49.8% still preferred in-person care and 23.5% switched to a video visit when confronted with higher relative costs for in-person care. In contrast, among those who initially preferred a video visit, only 18.9% still preferred a video visit and 61.7% switched to in-person visit when confronted with higher relative costs for video visits. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study found that participants were generally willing to use video visits but preferred in-person care, and those who preferred video visits were more sensitive to paying out-of-pocket cost. These results suggest that understanding patient preferences will help identify telehealth's role in future health care delivery.

The Fuld Institute for EBP Community Core: Supporting the Patient Perspective in EBP for Optimal Health and Wellness.

Health information and communication fall within patient preferences in evidence-based practice. Now more than ever, patients and families in the community have free access to "evidence" and healthcare information on the internet. However, is that information trustworthy, and how can we encourage people to use evidence to promote their optimal health and wellness? The recent rise of global spread of mis- and disinformation through social media outlets has affected public health. There is growing recognition that social media platforms provide magnified podiums leading to unfortunate outcomes. While much work has been done during the COVID-19 pandemic to address health misinformation, there is still much more work to do. We must respond to the widespread misinformation as a collective healthcare community to prevent poor healthcare decisions. Urging the public to be alert to information spread, assess the quality of health information (and whether it is evidence-based), and use shared decision-making tools is a path we can travel together.

Perception versus preference: The role of self-assessed risk measures on individual mitigation behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the midst of a global pandemic, prevention methods stand as a crucial first step toward addressing the public health crisis and controlling the spread of the virus. However, slowing the spread of the virus hinges on the public's willingness to follow a combination of mitigation practices to avoid contracting and transmitting the disease. In this study, we investigate the factors related to individuals' risk perceptions associated with COVID-19 as well as their general self-assessed risk preferences. We also provide insights regarding the role of risk perceptions and preferences on mitigation behavior by examining the correlation between these risk measures and both the likelihood of following various mitigation practices and total number of practices followed. Although we find both risk perceptions and preferences to be significantly correlated with mitigation behaviors, risk perceptions are correlated with a larger number of practices. Additionally, we find significant heterogeneity in mitigation behaviors across numerous individual and household characteristics. These results can serve as a benchmark for the design and development of interventions to increase awareness and promote higher adoption of mitigation practices.

E-prescribing and access to prescription medicines during lockdown: experience of patients in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Health services internationally have been compelled to change their methods of service delivery in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, to mitigate the spread of infection amongst health professionals and patients. In Aotearoa/New Zealand, widespread electronic delivery of prescriptions (e-prescribing) was enabled. The aim of the research was to explore patients' experiences of how lockdown, changes to prescribing and the interface between general practices and community pharmacy affected access to prescription medications. METHOD: The research employed a mixed-method approach. This included an online survey (n = 1,010) and in-depth interviews with a subset of survey respondents (n = 38) during the first COVID-19 lockdown (March-May 2020). Respondents were recruited through a snowballing approach, starting with social media and email list contacts of the research team. In keeping with the approach, descriptive statistics of survey data and thematic analysis of qualitative interview and open-ended questions in survey data were combined. RESULTS: For most respondents who received a prescription during lockdown, this was sent directly to the pharmacy. Most people picked up their medication from the pharmacy; home delivery of medication was rare (4%). Survey and interview respondents wanted e-prescribing to continue post-lockdown and described where things worked well and where they encountered delays in the process of acquiring prescription medication. CONCLUSIONS: E-prescribing has the potential to improve access to prescription medication and is convenient for patients. The increase in e-prescribing during lockdown highlighted how the system could be improved, through better feedback about errors, more consistency across practices and pharmacies, more proactive communication with patients, and equitable prescribing costs.

Patient Capability, Confidence, and Interest in Telemedicine at a Public Safety Net Hospital Urology Clinic.

INTRODUCTION: We preliminarily assessed challenges to developing a telemedicine program at a specialty clinic in a public safety-net hospital serving a diverse population. METHODS: Patients visiting a urology clinic were surveyed regarding potential follow-up telemedicine visits. A follow-up survey was performed during the COVID-19 pandemic to evaluate changing interest. RESULTS: Our pre-COVID study population consisted of 498 patients, speaking 17 primary languages; primarily, the population had MediCal or no insurance coverage (56.8%). Most had the capability to take part in telemedicine video calls (73.1%), though significantly fewer had the confidence (45.9%) or interest (51%). There was a distinct drop in capability, confidence, and interest with increasing age but not with preferred language. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we noted increased interest in non-traditional visits (n=100), with 79% stating they would repeat a non-in-person visit. CONCLUSION: Increasing interest in non-traditional visits during the COVID-19 pandemic suggests patient interest and confidence may be malleable.

Patient perspective on telemedicine replacing physical consultations in urology during the COVID-19 lockdown in Denmark.

OBJECTIVE: In March-April 2020, during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic lockdown in Denmark, the Danish Health Authorities recommended that, where possible, face-to-face patient-physician consultations be replaced by telephone consultations. The aim of this study was to obtain patients' evaluation of their telemedicine experience. METHODS: Patients who were candidates for telemedicine consultations were recruited based on their urological ailment, necessity for follow-up and comorbidity. New referrals including patients with suspicion of cancer were not candidates for telemedicine. In total, 548 patients had their appointment altered during the period from 13 March to 30 April 2020. Postal questionnaires were sent to 548 patients and 300 (54.7%) replied. RESULTS: In total, 280 patient answered, 224 (80%) men and 56 (20%) women, mean age 69 years (range 18-91) of whom 180 (64.3%) had a benign and 100 (35.7%) a malignant diagnosis. Twenty (6.7%) respondents did not remember their telephone consultation and were therefore excluded. Telephone consultation satisfaction was reported by 230 (85.0%) patients, but they would not prefer video consultations over telephone consultations, and only 102 (36.4%) would prefer telephone consultations in the future. Patients' age, sex and distance to the hospital did not seem to be associated with telephone consultation satisfaction (age p = 0.17; sex p = 0.99; distance p = 0.27, respectively). In total, 226 (80.7%) were medically assessed as being at risk for COVID, but 74 (26.4%) subjectively evaluated themselves as being at risk. CONCLUSIONS: In general (85.0%), urological patients were satisfied with telephone consultations.

Point-of-care faecal calprotectin testing in patients with paediatric inflammatory bowel disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Following the disruption of normal paediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) services during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, we prospectively audited the first-time use of home faecal calprotectin testing. We aimed to provide an alternative to laboratory tests and to assess the value of home testing as part of our regular services going forward. METHODS: Home test kits as well as accompanying user instructions were made available to our patients with paediatric IBD that required faecal calprotectin test between 17 April and 12 August 2020. Once the user completed the test, results were automatically uploaded to the result portal and clinical staff were alerted. A user feedback questionnaire was sent to users that had completed the home test. RESULTS: Of the 54 patients, 41 (76%) aged between 4.7 and 18.1 years used the home test. A total of 45 home tests were done, one of which produced an invalid result. The decision to modify management was made in 12 (29%) of the patients, while 14 (34%) had no changes made and 15 (37%) required further assessment. Twenty (48.8%) responded to the questionnaire and 85% stated that they preferred the home test to the laboratory testing method. CONCLUSIONS: Home calprotectin tests were useful in guiding clinical management during a time when laboratory testing was less available. They may offer benefits as part of routine paediatric IBD monitoring to help target appointments and reduce unnecessary hospital attendances in the future.

Telemedicine for adult congenital heart disease patients during the first wave of COVID-19 era: a single center experience.

AIM: To summarize our experience on the implementation of a telemedicine service dedicated to adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients during the lockdown for the first wave of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: This is a prospective study enrolling all ACHD patients who answered a questionnaire dedicated telematic cardiovascular examination. RESULTS: A total of 289 patients were enrolled, 133 (47%) were male, 25 (9%) were affected by a genetic syndrome. The median age was 38 (29-51) years, whereas the median time interval between the last visit and the telematic follow-up was 9.5 (7.5-11.5) months. Overall, 35 patients (12%) reported a worsening of fatigue in daily life activity, 17 (6%) experienced chest pain, 42 (15%) had presyncope and 2 (1%) syncope; in addition, 28 patients (10%) presented peripheral edema and 14 (5%) were orthopneic. A total of 116 (40%) patients reported palpitations and 12 had at least one episode of atrial fibrillation and underwent successful electrical (8) or pharmacological (4) cardioversion. One patient was admitted to the emergency department for uncontrolled arterial hypertension, five for chest pain, and one for heart failure. Two patients presented fever but both had negative COVID-19 nasal swab. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telemedicine dramatically increased and here we report a positive experience in ACHD patients. The postpandemic role of telemedicine will depend on permanent regulatory solutions and this early study might encourage a more systematic telematic approach for ACHD patients.

Preferences for Medical Consultations from Online Providers: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, consultations for prescription medicines are available via private providers such as online pharmacies. However, these providers may have lower thresholds for prescribing certain drugs. This is a particular concern for antibiotics, given the increasing burden of antimicrobial resistance. Public preferences for consultations with online providers are unknown, hence the impact of increased availability of online consultations on antibiotic use and population health is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a discrete choice experiment survey to understand UK public preferences for seeking online consultations, and the factors that influence these preferences, in the context of having symptoms for which antibiotics may be appropriate. METHODS: In a survey conducted between July and August 2018, general population respondents completed 16 questions in which they chose a primary care consultation via either their local medical centre or an online provider. Consultations were described in terms of five attributes, including cost and similarity to traditional 'face-to-face' appointments. Choices were modelled using regression analysis. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 734) placed a high value on having a consultation via their local medical centre rather than an online provider, and a low value on consultations by phone or video. However, respondents characterised as 'busy young professionals' showed a lower strength of preference for traditional consultations, with a higher concern for convenience. CONCLUSION: Before COVID-19, the UK public had limited appetite for consultations with online providers, or for consultations that were not face-to-face. Nevertheless, prescriptions from online providers should be monitored going forward, particularly for antibiotics, and in key patient groups.

The role of pandemic-related pregnancy stress in preference for community birth during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic introduced unparalleled uncertainty into the lives of pregnant women, including concerns about where it is the safest to give birth, while preserving their rights and wishes. Reports on the increased interest in community births (at home or in birth centers) are emerging. The purpose of this project was to quantitatively investigate psychological factors related to this birth preference. METHODS: This study included 3896 pregnant women from the COVID-19 Pregnancy Experiences (COPE) Study who were anticipating a vaginal birth. COPE Study participants were recruited online between April 24 and May 15, 2020, and completed a questionnaire that included preference with respect to place of birth and psychological constructs: fear of childbirth, basic beliefs about birth, pandemic-related preparedness stress, and pandemic-related perinatal infection stress. RESULTS: Women who preferred a community birth, on average, had less childbirth fear, had stronger beliefs that birth is a natural process, were less likely to see birth as a medical process, and were less stressed about being unprepared for birth and being infected with COVID-19. In multivariate models, higher stress about perinatal COVID-19 infection was associated with greater likelihood of preferring a community birth. The effect of perinatal infection stress on preference was stronger when preparedness stress was high. DISCUSSION: Women's birth preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic are associated with psychological processes related to risk perception. Community births are more appealing to women who view being in a hospital as hazardous because of the pandemic. Policies and prenatal care aimed to increase access to safe in-hospital and out-of-hospital birth services should be encouraged.

Adherence and acceptability of telehealth appointments for high-risk obstetrical patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Background: Telehealth has been successfully implemented for the delivery of obstetrical care. However, little is known regarding the attitudes and acceptability of patients and providers in high-risk obstetrics and whether the implementation of a telehealth model improves access to care in nonrural settings. Objective: This study aimed to describe patient and provider attitudes toward telehealth for the delivery of high-risk obstetrical care in a large healthcare system with both urban and suburban settings and to determine whether the implementation of a telehealth model improves patient adherence to scheduled appointments in this patient population. Study Design: Two self-administered surveys were designed. The first survey was sent to all high-risk obstetrical patients who received a telehealth visit between March 1, 2020, and May 30, 2020. The second survey was designed for providers who participated in these visits. We also compared the attended, cancelled, and no-show visit rates before (March 1 to May 30, 2019) and after (March 1 to May 30, 2020) the telehealth implementation and telehealth vs in-person visits in 2020. We reviewed scheduled high-risk prenatal care appointments, diabetes mellitus education sessions, and genetic counseling and Maternal-Fetal Medicine consultations. Results: A total of 91 patient surveys and 33 provider surveys were analyzed. Overall, 86.9% of patients were satisfied with the care they received and 78.3% would recommend telehealth visits to others. Notably, 87.8% of providers reported having a positive experience using telehealth, and 90.9% believed that telehealth improved patients' access to care. When comparing patient and provider preference regarding future obstetrical care after experiencing telehealth, 73.8% of patients desired a combination of in-person and telehealth visits during their pregnancy. However, a significantly higher rate of providers preferred in-person than telehealth visits (56% vs 23%, P=.024, respectively). When comparing visits between 2019 and 2020, there was a significantly lower rate of no-show appointments (8.49% vs 4.61%, P<.001), patient-cancelled appointments (7.06% vs 4.96%, P<.001), and patient same-day cancellations (2.30% vs 1.35%, P<.001) with the implementation of telehealth. There was also a significantly lower rate of patient-cancelled appointments (3.82% vs 5.44%, P=.021) and patient same-day cancellations (0.60% vs 1.65%, P=.002) with those receiving telehealth visits than in-person visits in 2020. Conclusion: The implementation of a telehealth model in high-risk obstetrics has the potential to improve access to high-risk obstetrical care, by reducing the rate of missed appointments. Both patients and providers surveyed expressed a high rate of satisfaction with telehealth visits and a desire to integrate telehealth into the traditional model of high-risk obstetrical care.

Patient Satisfaction With Telemedicine Appointments in an Academic Andrology-focused Urology Practice During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient satisfaction with telemedicine appointments as an alternative to in-person appointments at an Andrology-focused academic urology practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: Between March and June 2020, all appointments at the practice of a single Andrology-focused academic urologist were conducted by telephone. Consecutive patients were contacted by telephone following their appointment to complete a telephone questionnaire. Baseline demographic information was obtained, and perceptions regarding telephone appointments were assessed using a Likert scale. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients completed the telephone questionnaire. Median age was 48.5 years (interquartile range 37.3-62.8 years) with 55 of 96 (57.3%) of the appointments Andrology-focused. Mean distance of residence from the hospital was 8.4 km (interquartile range 4.7-25.2 km). Only 9 of 96 (9.3%) of the patients felt that the telephone format did not adequately address their needs. However, 26 of 96 (27.1%) of patients said they would prefer an in-person appointment. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, gender, presenting complaint, type of appointment, education level, and employment status, no factors were associated with feeling that the telephone appointment adequately addressed needs or preference for an in-person appointment in the future. CONCLUSION: Patients were generally satisfied with telephone appointments as an alternative to in-person appointments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Nonetheless, a substantial portion of patients said they would prefer in-person appointments in the future.

Preferences of people with mental illness for engaging in exercise programs under COVID-19 restrictions.

OBJECTIVES: People with mental illness may be vulnerable to decline in mental health and reduced physical activity because of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions. The aim of this study was to inform the design of physical activity interventions for implementation under these conditions to improve/maintain well-being and physical activity in this population. METHODS: People with mental illness who had participated in a physical activity program prior to the pandemic were invited to complete a survey about the impact of COVID-19 on mental health and physical activity and their preferences for engaging in a physical activity program under pandemic-related restrictions. RESULTS: More than half the 59 respondents reported worse mental health and lower physical activity during the pandemic. The preferred format for a physical activity program was one-on-one exercise instruction in-person in a park. Program components endorsed as helpful included incentivization, provision of exercise equipment and fitness devices, and daily exercise programs. About a third of the participants reported limitations in using technology for a physical activity program. CONCLUSIONS: In-person exercise support is preferred by people with mental illnesses during pandemic-related restrictions. Enablement strategies such as providing equipment and self-monitoring devices should be utilized; assistance may be needed to incorporate the use of technology in exercise programs.

Waitlisted Transplant Candidates' Attitudes and Concerns Toward Transplantation During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND In solid organ transplant (SOT) and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can contribute to a severe clinical course and an increased risk of death. Thus, patients awaiting a SOT or HSCT face the dilemma of choosing between a life-saving treatment that presents a significant threat of COVID-19 and the risk of waitlist dropout, progression of disease, or mortality. The lack of established literature on COVID-19 complicates the issue as patients, particularly those with inadequate health literacy, may not have the resources needed to navigate these decisions. MATERIAL AND METHODS We conducted a standardized phone survey of patients awaiting SOT or HSCT to assess the prevalence of inadequate health literacy and attitudes toward transplant during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS Seventy-one patients completed the survey, with a response rate of 84.5%. Regardless of health literacy, most waitlisted candidates recognized that the current pandemic is a serious situation affecting their care and that COVID-19 poses a significant risk to their health. Despite the increased risks, most patients reported they would choose immediate transplantation if there was no foreseeable end to the pandemic, and especially if the medical urgency did not permit further delay. There were no differences in responses across the patient waitlist groups for heart, kidney, liver, and stem cell transplant. CONCLUSIONS These findings can help transplant centers decide how transplantation services should proceed during this pandemic and can be used to educate patients and guide discussions about informed consent for transplant during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 driven care changes in high risk patients from an outpatient to a community setting - A cross-sectional study.

Background: COVID-19 has led to a change in care for patients with chronic conditions, involving a transfer of drug administration from an outpatient to a community setting. AIM: To investigate patient preferences for treatment settings in the light of the current pandemic. METHODS: Patients, who prior to the pandemic had attended two different outpatient clinics in a university hospital for their infusions or injections, were interviewed by telephone. The semi-structured interviews were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods. RESULTS: Out of 49 patients with either anti-inflammatory or immunoglobulin treatments (response rate: 83 %), 24 (49.0 %) switched from subcutaneous (sc) injections in the hospital to the community setting, 18 (36.7 %) from intravenous infusions (iv) in the hospital to sc administration at home and 7 (14.3 %) moved to iv at home. During the pandemic 38 (80.9 %) wanted to continue their treatment at home, but after the pandemic 22 (46.8 %) would opt to go back to the hospital. Satisfaction was high with both settings, slightly favoring drug administration in hospital. Qualitative data shows that patients while emphasizing the importance of the relationship with the healthcare team, had increased concerns about safety as a result of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The experience during the COVID-19 pandemic has increased self-management-skills in some patients, but long-term follow-up is needed. It has repercussions for future shared decision making for patients and their healthcare teams.

Preferences for a COVID-19 vaccine in Australia.

In absence of a COVID-19 vaccine, testing, contact tracing and social restrictions are among the most powerful strategies adopted around the world to slow down the spread of the pandemic. Citizens of most countries are suffering major physical, psychological and economic distress. At this stage, a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine is the most sustainable option to manage the current pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy by even a small subset of the population can undermine the success of this strategy. The objective of this research is to investigate the vaccine characteristics that matter the most to Australian citizens and to explore the potential uptake of a COVID-19 vaccine in Australia. Through a stated preference experiment, preferences towards a COVID-19 vaccine of 2136 residents of the Australian states and territories were collected and analysed via a latent class model. Results show that preferences for mild adverse cases, mode of administration, location of administration, price and effectiveness are heterogeneous. Conversely, preferences for immediacy and severe reactions are homogeneous, with respondents preferring a shorter period until vaccine is available and lower instances of severe side effects. The expected uptake of the vaccine is estimated under three different scenarios, with the value of 86% obtained for an average scenario. By calculating individual preferences, the willingness to pay is estimated for immediacy, effectiveness, mild and severe side effects.

Changes in Health Services Use Among Commercially Insured US Populations During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed unprecedented strain on patients and health care professionals and institutions, but the association of the pandemic with use of preventive, elective, and nonelective care, as well as potential disparities in use of health care, remain unknown. Objective: To examine changes in health care use during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April of 2020 relative to March and April of 2019 and 2018, and to examine whether changes in use differ by patient's zip code-level race/ethnicity or income. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed health insurance claims for patients from all 50 US states who receive health insurance through their employers. Changes in use of preventive services, nonelective care, elective procedures, prescription drugs, in-person office visits, and telemedicine visits were examined during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 relative to existing trends in 2019 and 2018. Disparities in the association of the pandemic with health care use based on patient's zip code-level race and income were also examined. Results: Data from 5.6, 6.4, and 6.8 million US individuals with employer-sponsored insurance in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively, were analyzed. Patient demographics were similar in all 3 years (mean [SD] age, 34.3 [18.6] years in 2018, 34.3 [18.5] years in 2019, and 34.5 [18.5] years in 2020); 50.0% women in 2018, 49.5% women in 2019, and 49.5% women in 2020). In March and April 2020, regression-adjusted use rate per 10 000 persons changed by -28.2 (95% CI, -30.5 to -25.9) and -64.5 (95% CI, -66.8 to -62.2) for colonoscopies; -149.1 (95% CI, -162.0 to -16.2) and -342.1 (95% CI, -355.0 to -329.2) for mammograms; -60.0 (95% CI, -63.3 to -54.7) and -118.1 (95% CI, -112.4 to -113.9) for hemoglobin A1c tests; -300.5 (95% CI, -346.5 to -254.5) and -369.0 (95% CI, -414.7 to -323.4) for child vaccines; -4.6 (95% CI, -5.3 to -3.9) and -10.9 (95% CI, -11.6 to -10.2) for musculoskeletal surgery; -1.1 (95% CI, -1.4 to -0.7) and -3.4 (95% CI, -3.8 to -3.0) for cataract surgery; -13.4 (95% CI, -14.6 to -12.2) and -31.4 (95% CI, -32.6 to -30.2) for magnetic resonance imaging; and -581.1 (95% CI, -612.9 to -549.3) and -1465 (95% CI, -1496 to -1433) for in-person office visits. Use of telemedicine services increased by 227.9 (95% CI, 221.7 to 234.1) per 10 000 persons and 641.6 (95% CI, 635.5 to 647.8) per 10 000 persons. Patients living in zip codes with lower-income or majority racial/ethnic minority populations experienced smaller reductions in in-person visits (≥80% racial/ethnic minority zip code: 200.0 per 10 000 [95% CI, 128.9-270.1]; 79%-21% racial/ethnic minority zip code: 54.2 per 10 000 [95% CI, 33.6-74.9]) but also had lower rates of adoption of telemedicine (≥80% racial/ethnic minority zip code: -71.6 per 10 000 [95% CI, -87.6 to -55.5]; 79%-21% racial/ethnic minority zip code: -15.1 per 10 000 [95% CI, -19.8 to -10.4]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of a large US population with employer-sponsored insurance, the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with dramatic reductions in the use of preventive and elective care. Use of telemedicine increased rapidly but not enough to account for reductions in in-person primary care visits. Race and income disparities at the zip code level exist in use of telemedicine.

Deferring Elective Urologic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Patients' Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the perspective of urological patients on the possibility to defer elective surgery due to the fear of contracting COVID-19. METHODS: All patients scheduled for elective urological procedures for malignant or benign diseases at 2 high-volume centers were administered a questionnaire, through structured telephone interviews, between April 24 and 27, 2020. The questionnaire included 3 questions: (1) In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, would you defer the planned surgical intervention? (2) If yes, when would you be willing to undergo surgery? (3) What do you consider potentially more harmful for your health: the risk of contracting COVID-19 during hospitalization or the potential consequences of delaying surgical treatment? RESULTS: Overall, 332 patients were included (51.5% and 48.5% in the oncology and benign groups, respectively). Of these, 47.9% patients would have deferred the planned intervention (33.3% vs 63.4%; P < .001), while the proportion of patients who would have preferred to delay surgery for more than 6 months was comparable between the groups (87% vs 80%). These answers were influenced by patient age and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (in the Oncology group) and by the underlying urological condition (in the benign group). Finally, 182 (54.8%) patients considered the risk of COVID-19 potentially more harmful than the risk of delaying surgery (37% vs 73%; P < .001). This answer was driven by patient age and the underlying disease in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reinforce the importance of shared decision-making before urological surgery, leveraging patients' values and expectations to refine the paradigm of evidence-based medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Preliminary assessment of patient and physician satisfaction with the use of teleconsultation in urology during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic compelled urologists to change access to healthcare, especially for oncology patients. Teleconsultation is a safe way to receive medical advice without a risk of infection, and was implemented urgently in our academic centres. Our purpose was to evaluate patient and physician satisfaction with teleconsultation set up during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: From March 16th 2020, all face-to-face consultations were cancelled in France, except for emergencies. Teleconsultation was started immediately by five senior urologists in two academic hospitals. All patients received an email survey including the validated Teleconsultation Satisfaction Questionnaire (TSQ) and demographic questions. Data were collected prospectively. Physicians also responded to the TSQ. Patient satisfaction was measured objectively with the validated 14-item TSQ. Each item was scored on a 5-point Likert scale. Factors associated with positive satisfaction with teleconsultation were assessed by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 105 patients replied to the survey (91.3%). Median age was 66 years (IQR: 55‒71) and 95 were men (90.5%). Median overall TSQ score was 67 (IQR: 60‒69); teleconsultation was judged to be a good experience by 88 patients (83.8%) and four physicians (80%). Patients who met their surgeon for the first time were more likely to have a good experience (OR = 1.2 [95% CI 1.1‒1.5], p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Introduced rapidly during the COVID-19 lockdown, urology teleconsultation attained a high level of satisfaction among both patients and physicians. A major change in telemedicine use is foreseen in the post COVID-19 era.