Patient Use, Experience, and Satisfaction With Telehealth in an Australian Population (Reimagining Health Care): Web-Based Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a rapid scale-up of telehealth services in Australia as a means to provide continued care through periods of physical restrictions. The factors that influence engagement in telehealth remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to understand the experience of Australian people who engaged in a telehealth consultation during the pandemic period (2020-2021) and the demographic factors that influence engagement. METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed to Australians aged over 18 years that included 4 questions on frequency and type of clinical consultation, including with a general practitioner (GP), specialist, allied health, or nurse; 1 question on the experience of telehealth; and 2 questions on the quality of and satisfaction with telehealth. Statistical analysis included proportion of responses (of positive responses where a Likert scale was used) and regression analyses to determine the effect of demographic variables. RESULTS: Of the 1820 participants who completed the survey, 88.3% (1607/1820) had engaged in a health care consultation of some type in the previous 12 months, and 69.3% (1114/1607) of those had used telehealth. The most common type of consultation was with a GP (959/1114, 86.1%). Older people were more likely to have had a health care consultation but less likely to have had a telehealth consultation. There was no difference in use of telehealth between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan regions; however, people with a bachelor's degree or above were more likely to have used telehealth and to report a positive experience. A total of 87% (977/1114) of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they had received the information they required from their consultation, 71% (797/1114) agreed or strongly agreed that the outcome of their consultation was the same as it would have been face-to-face, 84% (931/1114) agreed or strongly agreed that the doctor or health care provider made them feel comfortable, 83% (924/1114) agreed or strongly agreed that the doctor or health care provider was equally as knowledgeable as providers they have seen in person; 57% (629/1114) of respondents reported that they would not have been able to access their health consultation if it were not for telehealth; 69% (765/1114) of respondents reported that they were satisfied with their telehealth consultation, and 60% (671/1114) reported that they would choose to continue to use telehealth in the future. CONCLUSIONS: There was a relatively high level of engagement with telehealth over the 12 months leading up to the study period, and the majority of participants reported a positive experience and satisfaction with their telehealth consultation. While there was no indication that remoteness influenced telehealth usage, there remains work to be done to improve access to older people and those with less than a bachelor's degree.

Psychological distress and digital health service use during COVID-19: A national Australian cross-sectional survey.

Background: Previous research suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruption to the lives and mental health of Australians. In response, health services adapted rapidly to digital modes of treatment, prevention and care. Although a large amount of research emerged in the first year of the pandemic, the longer-term mental health impacts, contributing factors, and population-level utilization of digital health services are unknown. Methods: A population-based online survey of 5,100 Australians adults was conducted in October 2021. Psychological distress was assessed with the Kessler 6-item Psychological Distress Scale. Additional survey questions included use and satisfaction with digital health services. Where available, data were compared with our previous survey conducted in 2018, permitting an examination of pre- and post-pandemic digital health service utilization. Results: In 2021, almost a quarter (n = 1203, 23.6%) of respondents reported serious levels of psychological distress; participants with pre-existing health related conditions, of younger age, lower educational attainment, those who lost their job or were paid fewer hours, or living in states with lockdown policies in place were at highest risk of serious psychological distress. Almost half of all respondents (n = 2177, 42.7%) reported using digital health technologies in 2021, in contrast to just 10.0% in 2018. In 2021, respondents with serious psychological distress were significantly more likely to consult with a healthcare professional via telephone/videoconferencing (P < 0.001), access healthcare via a telephone advice line (P < 0.001), or via an email or webchat advice service (P < 0.001) than those with no serious psychological distress. Those with and without psychological distress were highly satisfied with the care they received via digital health technologies in 2021. Conclusion: Rates of serious psychological distress during the second year of the pandemic remained high, providing further evidence for the serious impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of the general population. Those with psychological distress accessed digital mental health services and were satisfied with the care they received. The results highlight the continued need for mental health support and digital health services, particularly for people living with chronic conditions, younger adults and people most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, both in the short term and beyond.

Consumer preferences, experiences, and attitudes towards telehealth: Qualitative evidence from Australia.

In Australia, telehealth is not new, with several telehealth specialist services being available for those living in rural and remote communities. However, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth was not routinely available for primary care or urban specialist appointments. There has been an increased focus in the use of telehealth within primary care, and particularly general practice, but overall, there has been limited research to date to guide telehealth best-practice based on consumer experiences and preferences within these settings. We aimed to capture the consumer experience of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, through a novel Kitchen Table Discussion (KTD) method. This increases access to a broader community consumer cohort, with consumer hosts leading discussions in a safe environment. The KTDs were conducted in May 2021, with 10 community members each hosting a group of up to 10 participants. A total of 90 participants took part from across Australia, with the majority living in major cities, although a significant proportion lived in inner and outer regional areas of Australia, or had experience living in rural, regional or remote areas. Seventy percent of participants reported using telehealth in the past. Data were analysed sequentially using thematic analysis and identified key themes: modality, convenience, access, wait time, existing relationship, communication, connectivity, cost, and privacy. Overall, the future of telehealth looks hopeful from the perspective of the consumer, but significant improvements are required to improve consumer engagement and experience. It is evident that 'one size does not fit all', with results suggesting consumers value the availability of telehealth and having choice and flexibility to use telehealth when appropriate, but do not want to see telehealth replacing face-to-face delivery. Participants tended to agree that telehealth was not a preferred method when physical examination was required but would suit certain points of the patient journey.

Educational attainment and willingness to use technology for health and to share health information - The reimagining healthcare survey.

BACKGROUND: Australia has seen a rapid uptake of virtual care since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to describe the willingness of consumers to use digital technology for health and to share their health information; and explore differences by educational attainment and area of remoteness. METHODS: We conducted an online survey on consumer preferences for virtual modes of healthcare delivery between June and September 2021. Participants were recruited through the study's partner organisations and an online market research company. Australian residents aged ≥18 years who provided study consent and completed the survey were included in the analysis. We reported the weighted percentages of participants who selected negative response to the questions to understand the size of the population that were unlikely to adopt virtual care. Age-adjusted Poisson regression models were used to estimate the prevalence ratios for selecting negative response associated with education and remoteness. RESULTS: Of the 1778 participants included, 29% were not aware of digital technologies for monitoring/supporting health, 22% did not have access to technologies to support their health, and 19% were not willing to use technologies for health. Over a fifth of participants (range: 21-34%) were not at all willing to use seven of the 15 proposed alternative methods of care. Between 21% and 36% of participants were not at all willing to share de-identified health information tracked in apps/devices with various not-for-profit organisations compared to 47% with private/for-profit health businesses. Higher proportions of participants selected negative response to the questions in the lower educational attainment groups than those with bachelor's degree or above. No difference was observed between area of remoteness. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the digital health literacy of people, especially those with lower educational attainment, will be required for virtual care to become an equitable part of normal healthcare delivery in Australia.

Creating person-centred health care value together.

In this article we ask: to what extent is person-centred care truly embedded in our system, and are we making the most of the policy levers that could help? We describe person-centred care, shine a light on deficits in the health system, and point to some policy enablers to support person-centred care. Cultural change and a commitment to value-based health care are required. We highlight the merit in adopting and acting on patient-reported measures as an indicator of what matters to the patient, the need for integrated data systems, and the role of a co-creation approach. Most importantly, we underscore the importance of funding reform and consumer leadership.

Global developments in social prescribing.

Social prescribing is an approach that aims to improve health and well-being. It connects individuals to non-clinical services and supports that address social needs, such as those related to loneliness, housing instability and mental health. At the person level, social prescribing can give individuals the knowledge, skills, motivation and confidence to manage their own health and well-being. At the society level, it can facilitate greater collaboration across health, social, and community sectors to promote integrated care and move beyond the traditional biomedical model of health. While the term social prescribing was first popularised in the UK, this practice has become more prevalent and widely publicised internationally over the last decade. This paper aims to illuminate the ways social prescribing has been conceptualised and implemented across 17 countries in Europe, Asia, Australia and North America. We draw from the 'Beyond the Building Blocks' framework to describe the essential inputs for adopting social prescribing into policy and practice, related to service delivery; social determinants and household production of health; workforce; leadership and governance; financing, community organisations and societal partnerships; health technology; and information, learning and accountability. Cross-cutting lessons can inform country and regional efforts to tailor social prescribing models to best support local needs.

Building collaborative leadership: A qualitative evaluation of the Australian Collaborative Pairs trial.

The need to reorient the health system to ensure greater involvement of consumers in healthcare has, in recent years, been highlighted as a priority in both literature and policy. This change requires renegotiating power relations among health organisations, health professionals and health consumers. This study presents findings from a trial of a program designed to foster collaborative relationships between clinicians and consumers of health services in the Australian setting. The King's Fund Collaborative Pairs program is a leadership development program that brings together a consumer, patient or community leader to work together in pairs with a service provider clinician or manager to develop new ways of working together. The trial involved 88 participants paired together undertaking one of seven programs conducted from October 2018 to August 2019. Participants were guided through a series of activities in five face-to-face sessions run by facilitators trained by the King's Fund. A qualitative evaluation was undertaken via semi-structured interviews (n = 40) with organisations involved, facilitators and participants. A brief review of program documentation was also included. Thematic analysis was undertaken to evaluate program acceptability, implementation and to identify program impacts. The evaluation, although limited in scope, found the program changed the way some participants understood the nature of consumer and provider relationships and how collaborative working relationships could be developed. The impact of the program on organisations sponsoring participants was less evident as numbers of participants from each organisation were limited and the time required for cultural change to develop is typically longer than the evaluation period allowed for. We highlight key recommendations addressing program recruitment, facilitation and format to inform future iterations of the program.

Engagement with healthcare providers and healthcare system navigation among Australians with chronic conditions: a descriptive survey study.

OBJECTIVES: With the rate of chronic conditions increasing globally, it is important to understand whether people with chronic conditions have the capacity to find the right care and to effectively engage with healthcare providers to optimise health outcomes.We aimed to examine associations between care navigation, engagement with health providers and having a chronic health condition among Australian adults. DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a cross-sectional, 39-item online survey including the navigation and engagement subscales of the Health Literacy Questionnaire, completed in December 2018, in Australia. Binary variables (low/high health literacy) were created for each item and navigation and engagement subscale scores. Logistic regression analyses (estimating ORs) determined the associations between having a chronic condition and the navigation and engagement scores, while controlling for age, gender, level of education and income. PARTICIPANTS: 1024 Australians aged 18-88 years (mean=46.6 years; 51% female) recruited from the general population. RESULTS: Over half (n=605, 59.0%) of the respondents had a chronic condition, mostly back pain, mental disorders, arthritis and asthma. A greater proportion of respondents with chronic conditions had difficulty ensuring that healthcare providers understood their problems (32.2% vs 23.8%, p=0.003), having good discussions with their doctors (29.1% vs 23.5%, p=0.05), discussing things with healthcare providers until they understand all they needed (30.5% vs 24.5%, p=0.04), accessing needed healthcare providers (35.7% vs 29.7%, p=0.05), finding the right place to get healthcare services (36.3% vs 29.2%, p=0.02) and services they were entitled to (48.3% vs 40.6%, p=0.02), and working out what is the best healthcare for themselves (34.2% vs 27.7%, p=0.03). Participants with chronic conditions were 1.5 times more likely to have low scores on the engagement (adjusted OR=1.48, p=0.03, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.08) and navigation (adjusted OR=1.43, p=0.026, 95% CI 1.043 to 1.970) subscales after adjusting for age, gender, income and education. CONCLUSION: Upskilling in engagement and communication for healthcare providers and people with chronic conditions is needed. Codesigned, clearly articulated and accessible information about service entitlements and pathways through care should be made available to people with chronic conditions. Greater integration across health services, accessible shared health records and access to care coordinators may improve navigation and engagement.

Accessible and affordable healthcare? Views of Australians with and without chronic conditions.

BACKGROUND: With 50% of Australians having chronic disease, health consumer views are an important barometer of the 'health' of the healthcare system for system improvement and sustainability. AIMS: To describe the views of Australian health consumers with and without chronic conditions when accessing healthcare. METHODS: A survey of a representative sample of 1024 Australians aged over 18 years, distributed electronically and incorporating standardised questions and questions co-designed with consumers. RESULTS: Respondents were aged 18-88 years (432 males, 592 females) representing all states and territories, and rural and urban locations. General practices (84.6%), pharmacies (62.1%) and public hospitals (32.9%) were the most frequently accessed services. Most care was received through face-to-face consultations; only 16.5% of respondents accessed care via telehealth. The 605 (59.0%) respondents with chronic conditions were less likely to have private health insurance (50.3% vs 57.9%), more likely to skip doses of prescribed medicines (53.6% vs 28.6%), and miss appointments with doctors (15.3% vs 10.1%) or dentists (52.8% vs 40.4%) because of cost. Among 480 respondents without private health insurance, unaffordability (73.5%) or poor value for money (35.3%) were the most common reasons. Most respondents (87.7%) were confident that they would receive high quality and safe care. However, only 57% of people with chronic conditions were confident that they could afford needed healthcare compared with 71.3% without. CONCLUSIONS: Health consumers, especially those with chronic conditions, identified significant cost barriers to access of healthcare. Equitable access to healthcare must be at the centre of health reform.

Changes in public perceptions and experiences of the Australian health-care system: A decade of change.

BACKGROUND: The views and experiences of the Australian public are an important barometer of the health system. This study provides key findings about the changing views held by Australians over time regarding their individual experiences and perceptions of the overall performance of the health system. METHODS: A population-based online survey was conducted in 2018 (N = 1024). Participants were recruited through market research panels. The results were compared with previous Australian population survey data sets from 2008 (N = 1146), 2010 (N = 1201) and 2012 (N = 1200), each of which used different population samples. The survey included questions consistent with previous surveys regarding self-reported health status, and questions about use, opinions and experiences of the health system. RESULTS: Overall, there has been a shift in views from 2008 to 2018, with a higher proportion of respondents now viewing the Australian health-care system more positively (X2 (2, N = 4543) = 96.59, P < .001). In 2018, areas for attention continued to include the following: the need for more doctors, nurses and other health workers (29.0%); lower costs for care or Orion medicines (27.8%); more access to care (13.1%); and enhancements in residential aged care (17.3% rated these services as 'bad' or 'very bad'). CONCLUSIONS: This research suggests that Australians' perceptions of their health-care system have significantly improved over the last decade; however, concerns have emerged over access to medicines, inadequate workforce capacity and the quality of aged care facilities. Our study highlights the value of periodically conducting public sentiment surveys to identify potential emerging health system problems.

A major new alliance in Australian healthcare: the Australian consensus framework for ethical collaboration in the healthcare sector.

The 'Australian Consensus Framework for Ethical Collaboration in the Healthcare Sector' (ACF) is an Australian initiative aimed at countering dysfunction and growing mistrust in the health sector through the development of a cross-sectoral consensus framework. The development of this framework arose from Australia's involvement in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperative (APEC) and has since become the largest of its kind internationally, with over 70 signatories representing professional bodies, industry organisations, hospital and health services associations, regulators and patient and advocacy groups. In this article, we describe and critique the framework and outline its implementation.

Commissioning: perspectives from the ground.

Primary Health Networks (PHNs) have been tasked with two key objectives to be achieved through commissioning. Public value aims can be achieved by developing operational capability in the context of an authorising environment. Public value will need to focus on system level outcomes from multiple perspectives, including a consumer perspective. The authorising environment will require policymakers to allow time for PHNs to mature into their role. It will require an environment of effective collaboration amongst multiple stakeholders including consumers. The operational capability will need to ensure highly competent managers and clinical leadership working in a symbiotic relationship. Although some Medicare Locals demonstrated commissioning capacity and capability, this will need to be scaled up at-pace in the new healthcare landscape in order for PHNs to optimally fulfil their roles.

On the road to value co-creation in health care: the role of consumers in defining the destination, planning the journey and sharing the drive.

The role of consumers is now extending beyond being passive health care recipients and even active participants in their own care to involvement in innovation and value co-creation in health care - from being "users and choosers" to becoming "makers and shapers" of services. For active dialogue to occur in co-creation, consumers must become equal partners with health care organisations and providers, with the focus on areas of interest to all parties. The use of value co-creation in health care involves embedding the approach across the whole health care system - from the microsystem level to the mesosystem and the entire macrosystem.

Models in the delivery of depression care: a systematic review of randomised and controlled intervention trials.

BACKGROUND: There is still debate as to which features, types or components of primary care interventions are associated with improved depression outcomes. Previous reviews have focused on components of collaborative care models in general practice settings. This paper aims to determine the effective components of depression care in primary care through a systematic examination of both general practice and community based intervention trials. METHODS: Fifty five randomised and controlled research trials which focused on adults and contained depression outcome measures were identified through PubMed, PsycInfo and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Trials were classified according to the components involved in the delivery of treatment, the type of treatment, the primary focus or setting of the study, detailed features of delivery, and the discipline of the professional providing the treatment. The primary outcome measure was significant improvement on the key depression measure. RESULTS: Components which were found to significantly predict improvement were the revision of professional roles, the provision of a case manager who provided direct feedback and delivered a psychological therapy, and an intervention that incorporated patient preferences into care. Nurse, psychologist and psychiatrist delivered care were effective, but pharmacist delivery was not. Training directed to general practitioners was significantly less successful than interventions that did not have training as the most important intervention. Community interventions were effective. CONCLUSION: Case management is important in the provision of care in general practice. Certain community models of care (education programs) have potential while others are not successful in their current form (pharmacist monitoring).