Patient Preferences for Preventive Healthcare During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Large Integrated Health System.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Stults CD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9289907 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers (HCW) is crucial. Objective: Utilizing a health system COVID-19 research registry, we assessed HCW risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Design: Retrospective cohort study with overlap propensity score weighting. Participants: Individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large academic healthcare system (N=72,909) from March 8-June 9 2020 stratified by HCW and patient-facing status. Main Measures: SARS-CoV-2 test result, hospitalization, and ICU admission for COVID-19 infection. Key Results: Of 72,909 individuals tested, 9.0% (551) of 6,145 HCW tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 6.5% (4353) of 66,764 non-HCW. The HCW were younger than non-HCW (median age 39.7 vs. 57.5, p<0.001) with more females (proportion of males 21.5 vs. 44.9%, p<0.001), higher reporting of COVID-19 exposure (72 vs. 17 %, p<0.001) and fewer comorbidities. However, the overlap propensity score weighted proportions were 8.9 vs. 7.7 for HCW vs. non-HCW having a positive test with weighted odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.38. Among those testing positive, weighted proportions for hospitalization were 7.4 vs.15.9 for HCW vs. non-HCW with OR of 0.42 (CI 0.26-0.66) and for ICU admission: 2.2 vs.4.5 for HCW vs. non-HCW with OR of 0.48 (CI 0.20 -1.04). Those HCW identified as patient-facing compared to not had increased odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (OR 1.60, CI 1.08-2.39, proportions 8.6 vs. 5.5), but no statistically significant increase in hospitalization (OR 0.88, CI 0.20-3.66, proportions 10.2 vs. 11.4) and ICU admission (OR 0.34, CI 0.01-3.97, proportions 1.8 vs. 5.2). Conclusions: In a large healthcare system, HCW had similar odds for testing SARS-CoV-2 positive, but lower odds of hospitalization compared to non-HCW. Patient-facing HCW had higher odds of a positive test. These results are key to understanding HCW risk mitigation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7444292 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers (HCW) is crucial.ObjectiveUtilizing a health system COVID-19 research registry, we assessed HCW risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.DesignRetrospective cohort study with overlap propensity score weighting.ParticipantsIndividuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large academic healthcare system (N?=?72,909) from March 8-June 9, 2020, stratified by HCW and patient-facing status.Main measuresSARS-CoV-2 test result, hospitalization, and ICU admission for COVID-19 infection.Key resultsOf 72,909 individuals tested, 9.0% (551) of 6145 HCW tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 6.5% (4353) of 66,764 non-HCW. The HCW were younger than the non-HCW (median age 39.7 vs. 57.5, p?<?0.001) with more females (proportion of males 21.5 vs. 44.9%, p?<?0.001), higher reporting of COVID-19 exposure (72 vs. 17%, p?<?0.001), and fewer comorbidities. However, the overlap propensity score weighted proportions were 8.9 vs. 7.7 for HCW vs. non-HCW having a positive test with weighted odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.38. Among those testing positive, weighted proportions for hospitalization were 7.4 vs. 15.9 for HCW vs. non-HCW with OR of 0.42 (CI 0.26-0.66) and for ICU admission: 2.2 vs. 4.5 for HCW vs. non-HCW with OR of 0.48 (CI 0.20-1.04). Those HCW identified as patient facing compared to not had increased odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (OR 1.60, CI 1.08-2.39, proportions 8.6 vs. 5.5), but no statistically significant increase in hospitalization (OR 0.88, CI 0.20-3.66, proportions 10.2 vs. 11.4) and ICU admission (OR 0.34, CI 0.01-3.97, proportions 1.8 vs. 5.2).ConclusionsIn a large healthcare system, HCW had similar odds for testing SARS-CoV-2 positive, but lower odds of hospitalization compared to non-HCW. Patient-facing HCW had higher odds of a positive test. These results are key to understanding HCW risk mitigation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7462108 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe demands for healthcare resources following a COVID-19 diagnosis are substantial, but not currently quantified.ObjectiveTo describe trends in healthcare utilization within 180 days for patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and identify patient factors associated with increased healthcare use.DesignObservational cohort study.PatientsA total of 64,011 patients with a test-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis from March to September 2020 in a large integrated healthcare system in Southern California.Main measuresOverall healthcare utilization during the 180 days following COVID-19 diagnosis, as well as encounter types and reasons for visits during the first 30 days. Poisson regression was used to identify patient factors associated with higher utilization. Analyses were performed separately for patients who were and were not hospitalized for COVID-19.Key resultsHealthcare utilization was about twice as high for hospitalized patients compared to non-hospitalized patients in all time periods. The average number of visits was highest in the first 30 days (hospitalized: 12.3 visits/30 person-days; non-hospitalized: 6.6) and gradually decreased over time. In the first 30 days, the majority of healthcare visits were telehealth encounters (hospitalized: 9.0 visits; non-hospitalized: 5.6 visits), and the most prevalent reasons for visits were COVID-related diagnoses, COVID-related symptoms, and respiratory-related conditions. For hospitalized patients, older age (≥65: RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15-1.41), female gender (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05-1.09), and higher BMI (≥40: RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.10) were associated with higher total utilization. For non-hospitalized patients, older age, female gender, higher BMI, non-white race/ethnicity, former smoking, and greater number of pre-existing comorbidities were all associated with increased utilization.ConclusionsPatients with COVID-19 seek healthcare frequently within 30 days of diagnosis, placing high demands on health systems. Identifying ways to support patients diagnosed with COVID-19 while adequately providing the usual recommended care to our communities will be important as we recover from the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8735886 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic delayed diagnosis and care for some acute conditions and reduced monitoring for some chronic conditions. It is unclear whether new diagnoses of chronic conditions such as dementia were also affected. We compared the pattern of incident Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) diagnosis codes from 2017 to 2019 through 2020, the first pandemic year.MethodsRetrospective cohort design, leveraging 2015-2020 data on all members 65 years and older with no prior ADRD diagnosis, enrolled in a large integrated healthcare system for at least 2 years. Incident ADRD was defined as the first ICD-10 code at any encounter, including outpatient (face-to-face, video, or phone), hospital (emergency department, observation, or inpatient), or continuing care (home, skilled nursing facility, and long-term care). We also examined incident ADRD codes and use of telehealth by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and spoken language.ResultsCompared to overall annual incidence rates for ADRD codes in 2017-2019, 2020 incidence was slightly lower (1.30% vs. 1.40%), partially compensating later in the year for reduced rates during the early months of the pandemic. No racial or ethnic group differences were identified. Telehealth ADRD codes increased fourfold, making up for a 39% drop from face-to-face outpatient encounters. Older age (85+) was associated with higher odds of receiving telecare versus face-to-face care in 2020 (OR:1.50, 95%CI: 1.25-1.80) and a slightly lower incidence of new codes; no racial/ethnic, sex, or language differences were identified in the mode of care.ConclusionsRates of incident ADRD codes dropped early in the first pandemic year but rose again to near pre-pandemic rates for the year as a whole, as clinicians rapidly pivoted to telehealth. With refinement of protocols for remote dementia detection and diagnosis, health systems could improve access to equitable detection and diagnosis of ADRD going forward.
| S-EPMC8657536 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other
Project description:In many countries and territories, public hospitals play a major role in coping with the COVID-19 pandemic. For public hospital managers, on the one hand, they must best utilize their hospital beds to serve the COVID-19 patients immediately. On the other hand, they need to consider the need of bed resources from non-COVID-19 patients, including emergency and elective patients. In this work, we consider two control mechanisms for public hospital managers to maximize the overall utility of patients. One is the dynamic allocation of bed resources according to the evolution process of the COVID-19 pandemic. The other is the usage of a subsidy scheme to move elective patients from the public to private hospitals. We develop a dynamic programming model to study the allocation of isolation and ordinary beds and the effect of the subsidy policy in serving three types of patients, COVID-19, emergency, and elective-care. We first show that the dynamic allocation between isolation and ordinary beds can provide a better utilization of bed resources, by cutting down at least 33.5% of the total cost compared with the static policy (i.e., keeping a fixed number of isolation beds) when facing a medium pandemic alert. Our results further show that subsidizing elective patients and referring them to private hospitals is an efficient way to ease the overcrowded situation in public hospitals. Our results demonstrate that, by dynamically conducting bed allocation and subsidy scheme in different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, patient overall utility can be greatly improved.
| S-EPMC8489298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo focus on critical care needs of coronavirus patients, elective operations were postponed and selectively rescheduled. The effect of these measures on patients was unknown. We sought to understand patients' perspectives regarding surgical care during the CoVID-19 pandemic to improve future responses.MethodsWe performed qualitative interviews with patients whose operations were postponed. Interviews explored patient responses to: 1) surgery postponement; 2) experience of surgery; 3) impacts of rescheduling/postponement on emotional/physical health; 4) identifying areas of improvement. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed through an integrated approach.ResultsPatient perspectives fell within the following domains: 1) reactions to surgery postponement/rescheduling; 2) experience of surgery during CoVID-19 pandemic; 3) reflections on communication; 4) patient trust in surgeons and healthcare.ConclusionsWe found no patient-reported barriers to rescheduling surgery. Several areas of care which could be improved (communication). There was an unexpected sense of trust in surgeons and the hospital.
| S-EPMC7970406 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceTelehealth use greatly increased in 2020 during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient preferences for telehealth or in-person care are an important factor in defining the role of telehealth in the postpandemic world.ObjectiveTo ascertain patient preferences for video visits after the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency and to identify patient perceptions of the value of video visits and the role of out-of-pocket cost in changing patient preference for each visit modality.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study was conducted using a nationally representative sample of adult members of the RAND American Life Panel. The data were obtained from the American Life Panel Omnibus Survey, which was fielded between March 8 and 19, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresPreferences for video visits vs in-person care were analyzed in the survey. The first question was about participants' baseline preference for an in-person or a video visit for a nonemergency health issue. The second question entailed choosing between the preferred visit modality with a cost of $30 and another modality with a cost of $10. Questions also involved demographic characteristics, experience with video visits, willingness to use video visits, and preferences for the amount of telehealth use after the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsA total of 2080 of 3391 sampled panel members completed the survey (participation rate, 61.3%). Participants in the weighted sample had a mean (SE) age of 51.1 (0.67) years and were primarily women (1079 [51.9%]). Most participants (66.5%) preferred at least some video visits in the future, but when faced with a choice between an in-person or a video visit for a health care encounter that could be conducted either way, more than half of respondents (53.0%) preferred an in-person visit. Among those who initially preferred an in-person visit when out-of-pocket costs were not a factor, 49.8% still preferred in-person care and 23.5% switched to a video visit when confronted with higher relative costs for in-person care. In contrast, among those who initially preferred a video visit, only 18.9% still preferred a video visit and 61.7% switched to in-person visit when confronted with higher relative costs for video visits.Conclusions and relevanceThis survey study found that participants were generally willing to use video visits but preferred in-person care, and those who preferred video visits were more sensitive to paying out-of-pocket cost. These results suggest that understanding patient preferences will help identify telehealth's role in future health care delivery.
| S-EPMC8637257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInformation about telehealth versus in-office visits and how patient experience before compared to during the COVID-19 pandemic is important for healthcare planning.ObjectiveTo compare patient experience by visit type and before and during the pandemic.DesignSurvey of patients assessing ambulatory care before and during the pandemic.ParticipantsA total of 58,500 adult patients (13,928 primary care and 44,581 specialty physician visits) at a large integrated health system with 197 clinics on the west coast of the United States. The majority were female (59%), 55 or older (65%), and non-Hispanic White (55%), and had an in-office visit (87%) while 10% had a tele-video and 3% a phone visit.Main measuresConsumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Survey 3.0 doctor communication, care coordination, access, and office staff composites; an overall rating of the doctor; and whether the patient would recommend the doctor to family and friends.Key resultsPatient experience with telehealth visits was as positive as or more positive than that with traditional office-based visits. Doctor communication on tele-video visits was viewed as slightly more positive than that of in-office or phone visits. Tele-video visits were also slightly more positive than in-office visits for care coordination, overall rating of the doctor, and willingness to recommend to family and friends. Office staff were viewed less positively on the phone than tele-video or in-office visits. Patient experience was similar before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., on a 0-100 possible range with a higher score being better, doctor communication was 94.4 before and 94.9 during).ConclusionsThe positive experiences with telehealth, especially tele-video, may be due to patient appreciation of efforts made to maintain access, the focused nature of telehealth visits, and help by staff for navigation technical issues. Lessons learned about delivering responsive telehealth care can be used to ensure high-quality care after the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8725638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RNA was extracted from whole blood of subjects collected in Tempus tubes prior to COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination. D01 and D21 correspond to samples collected at pre-dose 1 and pre-dose 2 respectively. RNA was also extracted from blood collected at indicated time points post-vaccination. DB1, DB2, DB4 and DB7 correspond to booster day 1 (pre-booster), booster day 2, booster day 4 and booster day 7 respectively. The case subject experienced cardiac complication following mRNA booster vaccination. We performed gene expression analysis of case versus controls over time.
2023-03-20 | E-MTAB-12829 | biostudies-arrayexpress