Dataset Information

The potential impact of allied health professional telehealth consultations on health inequities and the burden of treatment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid shift to remote consultations. The study aimed to explore the prevalence of telehealth consultations amongst allied health professional (AHP) services in the UK National Health Service (NHS), and the potential impact on health inequities and burden of treatment for patients.

Methods

Cross-sectional online survey. Participants were practising UK registered AHP and/or AHP service manager in an NHS/social care/local authority service. Data was collected between May - June 2021.

Results

658 participants took part in this study, including 119 AHP service managers, managing a total of 168 AHP services, and 539 clinicians. 87.4% of clinicians and 89.4% of services represented were using telehealth consultations as a method of delivering healthcare, the majority reported their services were planning to continue using telehealth post COVID-19 restrictions. Participants reported a lack of technological skills for patients as the most prevalent barrier affecting the patient's ability to conduct a telehealth consultation, followed by a lack of technology for patients. These were also reported as the biggest disadvantages of telehealth for patients. The majority of clinicians reported a reduction in the cost of parking/transport to attend hospital appointments as a patient benefit of telehealth consultations. Reported benefits for clinicians included saving travel time/costs and allowing flexible working, while benefits to the AHP service included patient flexibility in how their appointments are conducted and reducing the potential exposure of staff to communicable diseases.

Conclusions

The current large-scale implementation of telehealth in NHS AHP services may increase disparities in health care access for vulnerable populations with limited digital literacy or access. Consequently, there is a danger that telehealth will be considered inappropriate and thus, underutilised, negating the potential benefits of sustainability, patient empowerment and the reduction in the burden of treatment.

SUBMITTER: Eddison N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9245876 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a shift to remote consultations, but telehealth consultation guidelines are lacking or inconsistent. Therefore, a scoping review was performed to chart the information in the articles exploring telehealth for the UK allied health professionals (AHPs) and compare them with the UK AHP professional bodies' guidelines.DesignScoping review following Aksey and O' Malley methodological framework.Data sourcesCINHAL and MEDLINE were searched from inception to March 2021 using terms related to 'telehealth', 'guidelines' and 'AHPs'. Additionally, the UK AHP professional bodies were contacted requesting their guidelines.Study selectionArticles exploring telehealth for patient consultations, written in English and published in peer-reviewed journal or guidelines available from UK AHP professional bodies/their websites were considered eligible for review.Data extractionOne reviewer extracted data concerning three overarching domains: implementation, financial and technological considerations.Results2632 articles were identified through database searches with 21 articles eligible for review. Eight guidelines were obtained from the UK AHP professional bodies with a total of 29 included articles/guidelines. Most articles were published in the last two years; there was variety in telehealth terminology, and most were developed for occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists. Information was lacking about the assessment of telehealth use and effectiveness, barriers and limitations, the logistical management, the family's and caregiver's roles and the costs. There was lack of clarity on the AHPs' registration requirements, costs and coverage, and legal aspects.ConclusionThis study identified gaps in current guidelines, which showed similarities as well as discrepancies with the guidance for non-AHP healthcare professionals and revealed that the existing guidelines do not adequately support AHPs delivering telehealth consultations. Future research and collaborative work across AHP groups and the world's leading health institutions are suggested to establish common guidelines that will improve AHP telehealth services.

Project description:Objectives: To determine whether allied health interventions delivered using telehealth provide similar or better outcomes for patients compared with traditional face-to-face delivery modes. Study design: A rapid systematic review using the Cochrane methodology to extract eligible randomized trials. Eligible trials: Trials were eligible for inclusion if they compared a comparable dose of face-to-face to telehealth interventions delivered by a neuropsychologist, occupational therapist, physiotherapist, podiatrist, psychologist, and/or speech pathologist; reported patient-level outcomes; and included adult participants. Data sources: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases were first searched from inception for systematic reviews and eligible trials were extracted from these systematic reviews. These databases were then searched for randomized clinical trials published after the date of the most recent systematic review search in each discipline (2017). The reference lists of included trials were also hand-searched to identify potentially missed trials. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool Version 1. Data Synthesis: Fifty-two trials (62 reports, n = 4470) met the inclusion criteria. Populations included adults with musculoskeletal conditions, stroke, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and/or pain. Synchronous and asynchronous telehealth approaches were used with varied modalities that included telephone, videoconferencing, apps, web portals, and remote monitoring, Overall, telehealth delivered similar improvements to face-to-face interventions for knee range, Health-Related Quality of Life, pain, language function, depression, anxiety, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. This meta-analysis was limited for some outcomes and disciplines such as occupational therapy and speech pathology. Telehealth was safe and similar levels of satisfaction and adherence were found across modes of delivery and disciplines compared to face-to-face interventions. Conclusions: Many allied health interventions are equally as effective as face-to-face when delivered via telehealth. Incorporating telehealth into models of care may afford greater access to allied health professionals, however further comparative research is still required. In particular, significant gaps exist in our understanding of the efficacy of telehealth from podiatrists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, and neuropsychologists. Protocol Registration Number: PROSPERO (CRD42020203128).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence based practice enhances service planning and delivery, clinical decision making and patient care. However, health professionals often lack the time and opportunity to access or generate evidence. Research capacity building is thus an important mechanism for improving health service delivery. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a UK-wide Nurse and Allied Health Professional musculoskeletal research internship programme in which graduates applied to undertake their internship through one of five Higher Education Institutions. The evaluation explores the experiences of interns and their mentors. METHODS:Sixteen new graduates completed the internship programme (September 2015 - August 2018). Twelve interns and thirteen mentors participated in the evaluation. The evaluation used qualitative asynchronous email-based interviews to explore the experiences of interns and mentors. Interpretive phenomenological analysis of coded transcripts identified principal themes. RESULTS:Early research outputs from the interns include three peer reviewed publications and 21 conference abstract presentations. Two interns were in full time research at the time of interview or had a research component in their clinical role. Nine interns in clinical posts disclosed plans to return to research in the near future. Seven themes were identified: the impact on interns' careers; personal impact (for example, influence on self-confidence); impact on clinical practice; drivers for applying; intervention design (for example, attitudes concerning the timing and duration of the intervention); mentorship and networking (including general support provided and quality of career advice); challenges. CONCLUSION:The internship programme is an effective model in building research capacity in musculoskeletal research for Nurses and Allied Health Professionals, influencing careers, building confidence and improving clinical practice. The internship programme has the potential to be replicable to other clinical contexts nationally and internationally.

Project description:BackgroundTelehealth has become a necessity within the medical and allied health professions since the COVID-19 Pandemic generated a rapid uptake worldwide. It is now evident that this health delivery format will remain in use well into the future. However, health education training, most particularly allied health, has been slow to 'catch up' and adapt curriculum to ensure graduates are equipped with the knowledge and skills to implement telehealth in the workplace. The aim of this study was to gain a comprehensive understanding of current telehealth curricula in undergraduate and postgraduate allied health education training programs, with a focus on the aims, objectives, content, format, delivery, timeline and assessments.MethodsA systematic search of Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus, ERIC and relevant grey literature was conducted. Students studying allied health degrees through formal education at either postgraduate or undergraduate level were included, while nursing, dentistry and medical students were excluded. The data from the included studies was extracted and tabulated by country, participants, program and content.ResultsOf the 4484 studies screened, eleven met the eligibility criteria. All studies were published after 2012, highlighting the recency of research in this area. The studies were conducted in four countries (Australia, United Sates of America, United Kingdom, Norway) and participants were from various allied health professions. Of the included studies, four related to undergraduate programs, four to postgraduate programs and for the remaining three, this was not specified. Curricula were delivered through a combination of online and face-to-face delivery, with assessment tasks, where reported, comprising mainly multiple-choice and written tests.ConclusionPublished reporting of telehealth curricula within allied health programs is limited. Even the minority of programs that do include a telehealth component lack a systematic approach. This indicates that further primary research would be beneficial in this area.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In this paper we assess the quality of six deliberative stakeholder consultations regarding the implementation of a precision diagnostic for life-threatening pediatric brain tumors. Decision makers who base policy recommendations on the outputs of consultative exercises can presuppose that all deliberants are well informed of the policy issue, that participation in the deliberative process was fair, and that overcoming implementation barriers will necessarily result in practice change. Additional evidence is therefore needed to substantiate the informational quality of the deliberation, measure the equality of participation and study the effects on stakeholder reasoning to appropriately guide uptake of proposed recommendation(s). METHODS:Using the DeVries framework for assessing the deliberative quality, we analyzed data from 44 post-consultation evaluation surveys completed by pediatric oncology and palliative care teams at two tertiary pediatric healthcare centers in Canada. We also conducted turn-taking and word-contribution analyses from the text transcriptions of each deliberation to assess equality of participation using descriptive statistics. RESULTS:Deliberants agreed the quality of the deliberative process was fair (median ratings ranging from 9-10 out of 10) and the opportunities to receive expert information and discuss with others about the implementation of a new LDT were helpful (9.5 out of 10). While the session improved understanding of the implementation barriers and opportunities, it had marginal effects on deliberants' reasoning about whether LDTs would change their own clinical practice (3-10 out of 10). Participation was proportionate in at least four of the six deliberations, where no deliberant took more than 20% of total turns and contributed equal to, or less than 20% of total words. CONCLUSION:The quality assessment we performed demonstrates high informational value and perceived fairness of two deliberative stakeholder consultations involving pediatric palliative care and oncology teams in Canada. Quality assessments can reveal how the process of deliberation unfolds, whether deliberative outputs are the result of equitable participation among deliberants and what, if any, stakeholder voices may be missing. Such assessments should be routinely reported as a condition of methodological rigor and trustworthiness of deliberative stakeholder engagement research.