Dataset Information

Telehealth in cancer care during COVID-19: disparities by age, race/ethnicity, and residential status

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Telehealth may remain an integral part of cancer survivorship care after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While telehealth may reduce travel/waiting times and costs for many patients, it may also create new barriers that could exacerbate care disparities in historically underserved populations, manifesting as differences in overall care participation, and in differential video versus phone use for telehealth.

Methods

We reviewed visits by cancer survivors between January and December 2020 at a designated cancer center in Minnesota. We used descriptive statistics, data visualization, and generalized estimating equation logistic regression models to compare visit modalities and trends over time by age, urban/rural status, and race/ethnicity.

Results

Among 159,301 visits, including 33,242 telehealth visits, older and rural-dwelling individuals were underrepresented in telehealth compared with in-person care. Non-Hispanic White individuals, those aged 18–69 years, and urban residents used video for > 50% of their telehealth visits. In contrast, those aged ≥ 70 years, rural residents, and most patient groups of color used video for only 33–43% of their telehealth visits. Video use increased with time for everyone, but relative differences in telehealth modalities persisted. Visits of Black/African American patients temporarily fell in spring/summer 2020.

Conclusions

Our findings underscore reduced uptake of telehealth, especially video, among potentially vulnerable patient populations. Future research should evaluate reasons for differential telehealth utilization and whether visit modality (in-person versus video versus phone) affects cancer outcomes.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

A long-term cancer care model with integrated telehealth elements needs to account for specific barriers for vulnerable populations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11764-021-01133-4.

SUBMITTER: Jewett P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8605776 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAddiction treatment rapidly transitioned to a primarily telehealth modality (telephone and video) during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising concerns about disparities in utilization.ObjectiveTo examine whether there were differences in overall and telehealth addiction treatment utilization after telehealth policy changes during the COVID-19 pandemic by age, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study examined electronic health record and claims data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California for adults (age ≥18 years) with drug use problems before the COVID-19 pandemic (from March 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019) and during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020; hereafter referred to as COVID-19 onset). Analyses were conducted between March 2021 and March 2023.ExposureThe expansion of telehealth services during COVID-19 onset.Main outcomes and measuresGeneralized estimating equation models were fit to compare addiction treatment utilization during COVID-19 onset with that before the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilization measures included the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set of treatment initiation and engagement (including inpatient, outpatient, and telehealth encounters or receipt of medication for opioid use disorder [OUD]), 12-week retention (days in treatment), and OUD pharmacotherapy retention. Telehealth treatment initiation and engagement were also examined. Differences in changes in utilization by age group, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) were examined.ResultsAmong the 19 648 participants in the pre-COVID-19 cohort (58.5% male; mean [SD] age, 41.0 [17.5] years), 1.6% were American Indian or Alaska Native; 7.5%, Asian or Pacific Islander; 14.3%, Black; 20.8%, Latino or Hispanic; 53.4%, White; and 2.5%, unknown race. Among the 16 959 participants in the COVID-19 onset cohort (56.5% male; mean [SD] age, 38.9 [16.3] years), 1.6% were American Indian or Alaska Native; 7.4%, Asian or Pacific Islander; 14.6%, Black; 22.2%, Latino or Hispanic; 51.0%, White; and 3.2%, unknown race. Odds of overall treatment initiation increased from before the COVID-19 pandemic to COVID-19 onset for all age, race, ethnicity, and SES subgroups except for patients aged 50 years or older; patients aged 18 to 34 years had the greatest increases (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.22-1.40). Odds of telehealth treatment initiation increased for all patient subgroups without variation by race, ethnicity, or SES, although increases were greater for patients aged 18 to 34 years (aOR, 7.17; 95% CI, 6.24-8.24). Odds of overall treatment engagement increased (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.24) without variation by patient subgroups. Retention increased by 1.4 days (95% CI, 0.6-2.2 days), and OUD pharmacotherapy retention did not change (adjusted mean difference, -5.2 days; 95% CI, -12.7 to 2.4 days).ConclusionsIn this cohort study of insured adults with drug use problems, there were increases in overall and telehealth addiction treatment utilization after telehealth policies changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no evidence that disparities were exacerbated, and younger adults may have particularly benefited from the transition to telehealth.

Project description:ImportanceCOVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial and ethnic minority groups, and race and ethnicity have been associated with disease severity. However, the association of socioeconomic determinants with racial disparities in COVID-19 outcomes remains unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of race and ethnicity with COVID-19 outcomes and to examine the association between race, ethnicity, COVID-19 outcomes, and socioeconomic determinants.Data sourcesA systematic search of PubMed, medRxiv, bioRxiv, Embase, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 databases was performed for studies published from January 1, 2020, to January 6, 2021.Study selectionStudies that reported data on associations between race and ethnicity and COVID-19 positivity, disease severity, and socioeconomic status were included and screened by 2 independent reviewers. Studies that did not have a satisfactory quality score were excluded. Overall, less than 1% (0.47%) of initially identified studies met selection criteria.Data extraction and synthesisPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Associations were assessed using adjusted and unadjusted risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs), combined prevalence, and metaregression. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresThe main measures were RRs, ORs, and combined prevalence values.ResultsA total of 4 318 929 patients from 68 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, 370 933 patients (8.6%) were African American, 9082 (0.2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 101 793 (2.4%) were Asian American, 851 392 identified as Hispanic/Latino (19.7%), 7417 (0.2%) were Pacific Islander, 1 037 996 (24.0%) were White, and 269 040 (6.2%) identified as multiracial and another race or ethnicity. In age- and sex-adjusted analyses, African American individuals (RR, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.38-9.07; P = .008) and Hispanic individuals (RR, 4.68; 95% CI, 1.28-17.20; P = .02) were the most likely to test positive for COVID-19. Asian American individuals had the highest risk of intensive care unit admission (RR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.60-2.34, P < .001). The area deprivation index was positively correlated with mortality rates in Asian American and Hispanic individuals (P < .001). Decreased access to clinical care was positively correlated with COVID-19 positivity in Hispanic individuals (P < .001) and African American individuals (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, members of racial and ethnic minority groups had higher risks of COVID-19 positivity and disease severity. Furthermore, socioeconomic determinants were strongly associated with COVID-19 outcomes in racial and ethnic minority populations.

Project description:Importance: COVID-19 racial disparities have gained significant attention yet little is known about how age distributions obscure racial-ethnic disparities in COVID-19 case fatality ratios (CFR). Objective: We filled this gap by assessing relevant data availability and quality across states, and in states with available data, investigating how racial-ethnic disparities in CFR changed after age adjustment. Design/Setting/Participants/Exposure: We conducted a landscape analysis as of July 1st, 2020 and developed a grading system to assess COVID-19 case and death data by age and race in 50 states and DC. In states where age- and race-specific data were available, we applied direct age standardization to compare CFR across race-ethnicities. We developed an online dashboard to automatically and continuously update our results. Main Outcome and Measure: Our main outcome was CFR (deaths per 100 confirmed cases). We examined CFR by age and race-ethnicities. Results: We found substantial variations in disaggregating and reporting case and death data across states. Only three states, California, Illinois and Ohio, had sufficient age- and race-ethnicity-disaggregation to allow the investigation of racial-ethnic disparities in CFR while controlling for age. In total, we analyzed 391,991confirmed cases and 17,612 confirmed deaths. The crude CFRs varied from, e.g. 7.35% among Non-Hispanic (NH) White population to 1.39% among Hispanic population in Ohio. After age standardization, racial-ethnic differences in CFR narrowed, e.g. from 5.28% among NH White population to 3.79% among NH Asian population in Ohio, or an over one-fold difference. In addition, the ranking of race-ethnic-specific CFRs changed after age standardization. NH White population had the leading crude CFRs whereas NH Black and NH Asian population had the leading and second leading age-adjusted CFRs respectively in two of the three states. Hispanic population’s age-adjusted CFR were substantially higher than the crude. Sensitivity analysis did not change these results qualitatively. Conclusions and Relevance: The availability and quality of age- and race-ethnic-specific COVID-19 case and death data varied greatly across states. Age distributions in confirmed cases obscured racial-ethnic disparities in COVID-19 CFR. Age standardization narrows racial-ethnic disparities and changes ranking. Public COVID-19 data availability, quality, and harmonization need improvement to address racial disparities in this pandemic.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study sought to describe the health status of outpatients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by sex, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES).BackgroundAlthough a primary goal in treating patients with HFrEF is to optimize health status, whether disparities by sex, race/ethnicity, and SES exist is unknown.MethodsIn the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry, the associations among sex, race, and SES and health status, as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-overall summary (KCCQ-os) score (range 0 to 100; higher scores indicate better health status) was compared among 3,494 patients from 140 U.S. clinics. SES was categorized by total household income. Hierarchical multivariate linear regression estimated differences in KCCQ-os score after adjusting for 31 patient characteristics and 10 medications.ResultsOverall mean KCCQ-os scores were 64.2 ± 24.0 but lower for women (29% of sample; 60.3 ± 24.0 vs. 65.9 ± 24.0, respectively; p < 0.001), for blacks (60.5 ± 25.0 vs. 64.9 ± 23.0, respectively; p < 0.001), for Hispanics (59.1 ± 21.0 vs. 64.9 ± 23.0, respectively; p < 0.001), and for those with the lowest income (<$25,000; mean: 57.1 vs. 63.1 to 74.7 for other income categories; p < 0.001). Fully adjusted KCCQ-os scores were 2.2 points lower for women (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.8 to -0.6; p = 0.007), no different for blacks (p = 0.74), 4.0 points lower for Hispanics (95% CI: -6.6 to -1.3; p = 0.003), and lowest in the poorest patients (4.7 points lower than those with the highest income (95% CI: 0.1 to 9.2; p = 0.045; p for trend = 0.003).ConclusionsAmong outpatients with HFrEF, women, blacks, Hispanics, and poorer patients had worse health status, which remained significant for women, Hispanics, and poorer patients in fully adjusted analyses. This suggests an opportunity to further optimize treatment to reduce these observed disparities.