Appointment trends in new and established patients in ophthalmology and optometry during a pandemic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Song W
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7923867 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The purpose of the current study is to examine how nonmodifiable sociodemographic, disease, appointment, management, and survey factors correlate with provider rating. This was a retrospective cross-sectional study conducted on 29 857 patient Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys collected from January 2017 to January 2019 at a tertiary eye center. We included surveys of patients aged 18 years or older, who answered at least 4 of 6 subfield questions, and completed the survey within 90 days of the appointment. The main outcome was the odds of receiving top box score (TBS) of 10/10 on the survey question regarding overall provider rating. The results showed that the variables with higher odds of TBS included higher overall appointment attendance (odds ratio [OR]: 2.66 [95% CI: 1.23-5.75], P = .013); older patient age (OR 2.44 [95% CI: 2.08-2.87], P < .001]; higher percentage of survey questions completed (OR: 2.02 [95% CI: 1.79-2.27], P < .001); better best corrected visual acuity (OR: 1.85 [95% CI: 1.3-2.64], P = .001); optometry clinic visit (OR: 1.25 [95% CI: 1.15-1.36], P < .001); having procedures (OR: 1.19 [95% CI: 1.04-1.36], P = .013), surgery scheduled (OR: 1.18 [95% CI: 1.03-1.36], P = .020], or refraction done (OR: 1.16 [95% CI: 1.08-1.25], P < .001); being seen by male providers (OR: 1.11 [95% CI: 1.04-1.17], P = .001); and having additional eye testing performed (OR: 1.06 [95% CI: 1.00-1.13], P = .048). Variables associated with lower odds of TBS included longer time to complete survey (OR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.3-0.58], P = .001); new patient encounter (OR: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.58-0.65], P < .001); and glaucoma (OR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.59-0.75], P < .001), cornea (OR: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.71-0.87], P < .001), or comprehensive clinic visits (OR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.79-0.94], P < .001). Thus, nonmodifiable factors may affect the provider rating, and these factors should be studied further and accounted for when interpreting the results of patient experience surveys.
| S-EPMC8358496 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To characterize the use of virtual visits, as well as compare the characteristics to in-person visits during the pandemic period. This retrospective study included patients who had virtual and in-person ophthalmology visits from March 19, 2020, to July 31, 2020, in a large multispecialty ophthalmic center. Exclusion criteria included patients aged less than 18 years old; canceled, incomplete, mislabelled, and duplicated visits. 2943 virtual and 56,174 in-person visits were identified. A random sample of 3000 in-person visits was created. Each visit was analyzed as an individual data point. 2,266 virtual visits (2,049 patients, 64.3% female, mean [SD] age 64.3 [16.6] years old) and 2590 in-person visits (2509 patients, 59.5% female, 65.9 [15.8] years old) were included. Most virtual visits were classified as comprehensive ophthalmology (34.6%), optometry-related (19.5%), and oculoplastics (13.0%). For in-person visits, the most common specialties were optometry (29.8%), comprehensive ophthalmology (23.9%), and retina and uveitis (17.3%). The most common diagnoses in the virtual group were from the eyelids, lacrimal system, and orbits group (26.9%), while in the in-person groups were choroid and retina conditions (19.3%). Numerous ocular conditions were evaluated and managed through virtual visits, and external complaints and oculoplastic consults appear to be well-suited to the virtual format. Further studies focusing on visual outcomes and patient experience will be beneficial.
| S-EPMC8796604 | biostudies-literature
Project description:North American optometry and ophthalmology faculty members and vision science librarians were surveyed online (14% response rate) about teaching evidence-based practice (EBP). Similar to studies of other health care programs, all five EBP steps (Ask, Acquire, Appraise, Apply, Assess) were taught to varying degrees. Optometry and ophthalmology EBP educators may want to place further emphasis on (1) the Apply and Assess steps, (2) faculty- and student-generated questions and self-assessment in clinical settings, (3) online teaching strategies, (4) programmatic integration of EBP learning objectives, and (5) collaboration between faculty members and librarians.
| S-EPMC4076132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic posed great challenges for teachers and students, as teaching had to take place despite the restriction of classroom teaching. For attendance lessons and events with patient contact alternatives had to be arranged at short notice between mid-March and the beginning of the semester in mid-April.ObjectiveDescription of the concept and implementation in the student teaching at the Department of Ophthalmology of the University Medical Center Mainz in complete digital form in spring 2020.Presentation of conceptLectures, examination course and practical training in ophthalmology take place in the 5th and 6th semester of the study of human medicine. The basis of the new concept were the former course curricula. Implemented concepts included a complete revision and implementation of lectures as video podcasts, examination videos, online examination conferences, interactive patient cases, narrated videos of surgery, anamnesis videos of patients and the design of the virtual patient room, a live online practice with presentation and examination of patients including transmission of the slit-lamp image to reproduce anterior and posterior segment examination. An evaluation showed a very positive reception of the new concept by students.DiscussionWithin a tight timeframe of 4 weeks a complete revision of the ophthalmology course was achieved. The implementation was time-consuming, with the largest share in the media production of examination videos, interactive patient cases and video podcasts of the lectures. We consider a reduction of classroom teaching for parts of the learning objectives that can be represented by such videos to be possibly useful. An independent digital appropriation of such content may enable a more productive learning environment in face-to-face teaching.
| S-EPMC7809555 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10697793 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8147902 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract During the COVID‐19 pandemic, online appointment‐scheduling systems have become standard procedure in blood donation practice. This study develops and empirically tests a comprehensive conceptual model of blood donors' usage intentions of a donation appointment‐scheduling system during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Online survey data are collected from blood donors (n = 3269) and analyzed using the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS‐SEM) approach. The results provide evidence that intentions to use the system in the post‐COVID‐19 future are high. Together with high‐perceived usefulness and ease of use, this indicates generally high‐system acceptance among active donors during the pandemic and beyond. The study identifies a number of factors that influence this acceptance. The results show that different aspects of service quality perceptions in the context of the system drive its acceptance. The strongest positive effect is exerted by blood donors' pre‐donation planning convenience, followed by an enhanced actual donation experience. Reduced flexibility as a result of the system has a strong negative effect. The authors derive managerial implications for blood donation services regarding preserving the acceptance level and suggest future research prospects.
| S-EPMC9347690 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted the ski industry worldwide by closing or limiting access to ski resorts. Subsequently, anecdotal reports of increased backcountry use emerged in the press, with concerns of inexperienced skiers causing or having problems in the backcountry. This study attempted to quantify this and identify motivations for new backcountry skiers. Methods Self-identified backcountry skiers and snowboarders (aged ≥18 y) in the United States and Canada completed an anonymous 29-question online survey distributed by regional avalanche centers, education providers, and skiing organizations (n=4792). Respondents were stratified by backcountry experience, defining “newcomers” who began backcountry skiing from 2019 to 2021, coincident with the COVID-19 pandemic. Percentages of ski days spent in the backcountry were compared before and during the COVID-19 pandemic using paired t-tests and across cohorts using repeated-measures analysis of variance. Avalanche education was compared using unpaired χ2 tests. Results Of established skiers, 81% noticed more people in the backcountry and 27% reported increasing their own use. Participants reported spending 17% (95% CI, 15.8–17.9) more of their days in the backcountry during the COVID-19 pandemic, with newcomers increasing their time spent by 36% and established skiers increasing their time spent by 13% (P<0.0001). Of newcomers, 27% cited the COVID-19 pandemic as motivation to enter the backcountry and 24% lacked formal avalanche education, which is significantly higher than the 14% of established skiers (P<0.0001). Conclusions Influenced by factors related to COVID-19, reported backcountry use increased during the pandemic. Newcomers had a lower level of avalanche education and less confidence in evaluating terrain. Because 80% of participants were recruited from avalanche safety or education websites, this likely underestimates skiers lacking avalanche awareness or education and is further limited by the nature of online surveys.
| S-EPMC9561445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIndividuals with perceived experience and expertise are invited by editorial boards to provide commentary through editorials. Female representation among editorialists is not yet defined.ObjectiveTo determine female representation as editorial authors in 3 high-impact general ophthalmology journals.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study investigates the proportion of female authorship in editorials published between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 in 3 journals: Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and American Journal of Ophthalmology. Data were collected from April to June 2020.Main outcomes and measuresProportions of female first and senior (last or solo) authors between 2005 to 2009 compared with 2015 to 2019. Secondary outcome measures include representation by sex across degree types and subspecialties. Comparisons were made for all editorialists and ophthalmologist editorialists.ResultsOf 814 editorial articles, there were 1179 (first and senior) authors identified. Women held 301 (25.5%) of these authorships, including 116 of 365 first authorships (32.9%) and 185 of 814 senior authorships (23.9%). Overall, female first and senior authorships grew by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 (85 of 469 [18.1%] vs 216 of 710 [30.4%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 7.4-317.2; P < .001). Between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, first and senior authorships by women increased (first: 33 of 133 [24.8%] vs 83 of 232 [35.8%]; difference, 11.0%; 95% CI, 1.4-320.6; P = .03; senior: 52 of 336 [15.5%] vs 133 of 478 [27.8%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 6.8-317.9; P < .001). JAMA Ophthalmology most substantially contributed to the increase in female first and senior authorships (13.8% and 16%), although the test for homogeneity among the 3 journals was not significant. The proportion of female ophthalmologist first authors was greater than the proportion of American Board of Ophthalmology-certified female ophthalmologists (81 of 281 [28.9%] vs 123 of 672 [18.3%]; difference, 10.6%; 95% CI, 5.3-315.9; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThe proportion of female senior authors increased by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, but female authors represented only 25.5% of editorialists. Compared with male ophthalmologists, female ophthalmologists were more commonly first than senior authors. Additionally, female authors were more likely to be nonophthalmologists or to hold nonmedical, non-PhD degrees. While the swelling rank of female editorialists has paralleled the rising proportion of female ophthalmologists over time, parity by sex has yet to be attained. Greater awareness of disparities and strategies to mitigate them may help equalize representation.
| S-EPMC8529415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding public and patient attitudes to clinical research is paramount to successful recruitment. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to additional hurdles in achieving this. Our aim is to understand the current factors and attitudes towards clinical trial participation in order to assist in recruitment to clinical trials.MethodsWe conducted face-to-face interviews with patients in the outpatient department at a tertiary eye hospital facilitated by a 32-item questionnaire developed by the research team. Patient characteristics were correlated with their responses, in addition to qualitative thematic text analysis.ResultsA total of 53 patients were interviewed. Forty per cent indicated that they would be willing to participate in clinical research in the current climate. General motivating factors for involvement in research included personal gain, altruism and contribution to innovation. Factors limiting participation included concerns regarding own safety, inconvenience, accessibility and lack of benefit. 22.6% of participants felt that the COVID-19 pandemic has changed their outlook on research. These were categorised into positive (increased awareness of the importance and need for research, altruism) and negative (increased anxiety, need to minimise exposure to the hospital environment) influences.ConclusionsFactors influencing patients' decisions to participate in trials are similar to those observed prior to COVID-19 but with an increased focus on the environment the research is conducted in. The COVID-19 pandemic has had positive and negative impacts on patient attitudes towards research. Trial design, with a particular focus on setting and safety measures, in reassuring patients is increasingly important.
| S-EPMC9522458 | biostudies-literature