Dataset Information

Transitioning to Remote Clinic Visits in a Smoking Cessation Trial During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The pandemic of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has caused disruptions in ongoing clinical trials and is expected to accelerate interest in conducting research studies remotely.

Objective

A quasi-experimental, mixed methods approach was used to examine the rates of visit completion as well as the opinions and experiences of participants enrolled in an ongoing clinical trial of smoking cessation who were required to change from in-person clinic visits to remote visits using video or telephone conferencing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

For quantitative comparisons, we used a quasi-experimental design, comparing a cohort of participants followed during the pandemic (n=23, COVID-19 cohort) to a comparable cohort of participants followed over a similar time period in the calendar years 2018 and 2019 (n=51, pre-COVID-19 cohort) to examine the rates of completion of scheduled visits and biospecimen collection. For the qualitative component, interviews were conducted with participants who experienced the transition from in-person to remote visits.

Results

Participants in the COVID-19 cohort completed an average of 83.6% of remote clinic visits (95% CI 73.1%-91.2%), which was not significantly different than the in-person completion rate of 89.8% in the pre-COVID-19 cohort. Participants in the COVID-19 cohort returned an average of 93.2% (95% CI 83.5%-98.1%) of saliva specimens for remote clinic visits completed, which was not significantly different than the in-person saliva specimen completion rate of 100% in the pre-COVID-19 cohort. Two broad themes emerged from the qualitative data: (1) the benefits of remote visits and (2) the challenges of remote counseling compared to in-person counseling. Despite limited experience with telehealth prior to this transition, most participants expressed a willingness to engage in remote visits in the future.

Conclusions

Even in the context of a rapid transition from in-person to remote visits necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, rates of visit completion and return of biospecimens remained high. Participants were generally accepting of the transition. Further research is needed to identify the optimal mix of in-person and remote visits beyond the pandemic context and to better understand how these changes may impact study outcomes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03262662; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT03262662.

SUBMITTER: Mahoney MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8092028 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTelemedicine has been used for decades. Despite its many advantages, its uptake and rigorous evaluation of feasibility across neurology's ambulatory subspecialties has been sparse. However, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted health care systems worldwide to reconsider traditional health care delivery. To safeguard health care workers and patients, many health care systems quickly transitioned to telemedicine, including across neurology subspecialties, providing a new opportunity to evaluate this modality of care.ObjectiveTo evaluate the accelerated implementation of video visits in ambulatory neurology during the COVID-19 pandemic, we used mixed methods to assess adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, and perceptions of potential sustainability.MethodsVideo visits were launched rapidly in ambulatory neurology clinics of a large academic medical center. To assess adoption, we analyzed clinician-level scheduling data collected between March 22 and May 16, 2020. We assessed acceptability, appropriateness, and sustainability via a clinician survey (n=48) and semistructured interviews with providers (n=30) completed between March and May 2020.ResultsVideo visits were adopted rapidly; overall, 65 (98%) clinicians integrated video visits into their workflow within the first 6 implementation weeks and 92% of all visits were conducted via video. Video visits were largely considered acceptable by clinicians, although various technological issues impacted their satisfaction. Video visits were reported to be more convenient for patients, families, and caregivers than in-person visits; however, access to technology, the patient's technological capacity, and language difficulties were considered barriers. Many clinicians expressed optimism about future utilization of video visits in neurology. They believed that video visits promote continuity of care and can be incorporated into their practice long-term, although several insisted that they can never replace the in-person examination.ConclusionsVideo visits are an important addition to clinical care in ambulatory neurology and are anticipated to remain a permanent supplement to in-person visits, promoting patient care continuity, and flexibility for patients and clinicians alike.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Tobacco is a major public health concern. A 12-week standard smoking cessation program is available in Japan; however, it requires face-to-face clinic visits, which has been one of the key obstacles to completing the program, leading to a low smoking cessation success rate. Telemedicine using internet-based video counseling instead of regular clinic visits could address this obstacle. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of an internet-based remote smoking cessation support program compared with the standard face-to-face clinical visit program among patients with nicotine dependence. METHODS:This study was a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial. We recruited nicotine-dependent adults from March to June 2018. Participants randomized to the telemedicine arm received internet-based video counseling, whereas control participants received standard face-to-face clinic visits at each time point in the smoking cessation program. Both arms received a CureApp Smoking Cessation smartphone app with a mobile exhaled carbon monoxide checker. The primary outcome was a continuous abstinence rate (CAR) from weeks 9 to 12. Full analysis set was used for data analysis. RESULTS:We randomized 115 participants with nicotine dependence: 58 were allocated to the telemedicine (internet-based video counseling) arm and 57, to the control (standard face-to-face clinical visit) arm. We analyzed all 115 participants for the primary outcome. Both telemedicine and control groups had similar CARs from weeks 9 to 12 (81.0% vs 78.9%; absolute difference, 2.1%; 95% CI -12.8 to 17.0), and the lower limit of the difference between groups (-12.8%) was greater than the prespecified limit (-15%). CONCLUSIONS:The application of telemedicine using internet-based video counseling as a smoking cessation program had a similar CAR from weeks 9 to 12 as that of the standard face-to-face clinical visit program. The efficacy of the telemedicine-based smoking cessation program was not inferior to that of the standard visit-based smoking cessation program. TRIAL REGISTRATION:University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000031620; https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000035975.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To generate system insights on patient and provider levers and strategies that must be activated to improve hospital-based smoking cessation treatment. DESIGN:Mixed methods study including a series of in-depth group model building sessions, which informed the design of an online survey completed by healthcare providers and a structured interview protocol administered at the bedside to patients who smoke. SETTING:Large, tertiary care hospital in the Midwestern United States. PARTICIPANTS:Group model building: 28 healthcare providers and 22 previously-hospitalised patients; Online survey: 308 healthcare providers; Bedside interviews: 205 hospitalised patients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Hypothesis-generating, participatory qualitative methods informed the examination of the following quantitative outcomes: patient interest versus provider perception of patient interest in smoking cessation and treatment; patient-reported receipt versus provider-reported offering of inpatient smoking cessation interventions; and priority ratings of importance and feasibility of strategies to improve treatment. RESULTS:System insights included patients frequently leaving the floor to smoke, which created major workflow disruption. Leverage points included interventions to reduce withdrawal symptoms, and action ideas included nurse-driven protocols for timely administration of nicotine replacement therapy. Quantitative data corroborated system insights; for instance, 80% of providers reported that patients frequently leave the floor to smoke, leading to safety risks, missed assessments and inefficient use of staff time. Patients reported significantly lower rates of receiving any smoking cessation interventions, compared with provider reports (mean difference=17.4%-33.7%, p<0.001). Although 92% of providers cited patient interest as a key barrier, only 4% of patients indicated no interest in quitting or reducing smoking. CONCLUSIONS:Engaging hospital providers and patients in participatory approaches to develop an implementation strategy revealed discrepant perceptions of patient interest and frequency of hospital-based treatment for smoking. These findings spurred adoption of standardised point-of-care treatment for cigarette smoking, which remains highly prevalent yet undertreated among hospitalised patients.