Literature Collection

BackgroundThe prevalence of chronic diseases in children and adolescents has significantly increased. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated telemedicine adoption, leading to improved healthcare access and outcomes. Despite its benefits, telemedicine is still not fully integrated into standard care. Previous reviews have been limited in scope. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of recent trials on web or app-based telemedicine for chronically ill children and adolescents, identifying interventions and outcomes for future healthcare strategies.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed on November 21, 2023, and updated on January 9, 2025. Results were filtered to include prospective intervention studies involving children and adolescents with chronic conditions and limited to publications from 2017 onwards. A total of 8699 results were retrieved, and 1506 titles were screened for eligibility, resulting in 116 studies included in the review.ResultsThese studies covered 45 different conditions, with the highest numbers for diabetes, asthma, and obesity. Telemedicine interventions varied, including gamification, video meetings, integrated devices, psychological components, symptom tracking, and educational content. Most studies reported high feasibility and patient satisfaction. Clinical outcomes improved in some cases, and none were worse than standard care. The heterogeneity limited direct comparisons and meta-analysis, and small sample sizes in many studies affected the generalizability and statistical significance of the findings.ConclusionsOur study highlights the potential of telemedicine in managing chronic illnesses among children, emphasizing the need for standardized methodologies, larger sample sizes, and continued investment in infrastructure and equitable policies to fully realize its benefits in improving accessibility, convenience, cost savings, and overall health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Future telemedicine reimbursement is uncertain. Knowing which patients may be most reliant on telemedicine can help assess its value. OBJECTIVE: To identify the patient characteristics associated with using only telemedicine for primary care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study of individuals who had multiple primary care visits in 2022. PATIENTS: A total of 1,151,984 adult patients with two or more primary care visits seeking care at a large integrated health system in Northern California in 2022. MAIN MEASURES: Primary care visit modality (only telemedicine, or any in-person); associations (in adjusted percentages) between characteristics and the likelihood of accessing primary care via telemedicine only. KEY RESULTS: Most patients (n = 812,581, 70.5%) used telemedicine in 2022, with 55.1% (n = 635,208) having both telemedicine and in-person visits, and 15.4% (n = 117,373) having only telemedicine visits. As adjusted percentages, 23.5% of patients 18-44 years old (95% CI, 23.3-23.6%) used only telemedicine primary care visits, a significantly higher proportion than younger (< 18-4.7%; 95% CI 4.6-4.8%) or older age groups (45-64-17.6%; 95% CI 17.5-17.8%; 65-74-13.4%; 95% CI 13.2-13.5%; 75 + -14.5%, 95% CI 14.3-14.7%). Patients who were female (16.6%, CI 16.5-16.7% vs. male 13.8%, 95% CI 13.8-13.9%), Black (17.0%, 95% CI 16.9-17.3% vs. White 15.5%, 95% CI 15.4-15.6%), living in low-SES neighborhoods (15.8%, 95% CI 15.6-15.9% vs. higher 15.4%, 95% CI 15.3-15.4%), with longer drive times to clinic (11-20 min-15.4%, 95% CI 15.3-15.5%; 20 + min-17.7%, 95% CI 17.5-17.8%) or with a clinic parking fee (16.7%, 95% CI 16.5-17.0% vs. free 15.3%, 95% CI 15.2-15.4%) were more likely to only use telemedicine to access primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine may have facilitated access to primary care for patients that have barriers to in-person care.

IMPORTANCE: Early COVID-19 mitigation strategies placed an additional burden on individuals seeking care for opioid use disorder (OUD). Telemedicine provided a way to initiate and maintain transmucosal buprenorphine treatment of OUD. OBJECTIVE: To examine associations between transmucosal buprenorphine OUD treatment modality (telemedicine vs traditional) during the COVID-19 public health emergency and the health outcomes of treatment retention and opioid-related nonfatal overdose. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using Medicaid claims and enrollment data from November 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, for individuals aged 18 to 64 years from Kentucky and Ohio. Data were collected and analyzed in June 2022, with data updated during revision in August 2023. EXPOSURES: The primary exposure of interest was the modality of the transmucosal buprenorphine OUD treatment initiation. Relevant patient demographic and comorbidity characteristics were included in regression models. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: There were 2 main outcomes of interest: retention in treatment after initiation and opioid-related nonfatal overdose after initiation. For outcomes measured after initiation, a 90-day follow-up period was used. The main analysis used a new-user study design; transmucosal buprenorphine OUD treatment initiation was defined as initiation after more than a 60-day gap in buprenorphine treatment. In addition, uptake of telemedicine for buprenorphine was examined, overall and within patients initiating treatment, across quarters in 2020. RESULTS: This study included 41 266 individuals in Kentucky (21 269 women [51.5%]; mean [SD] age, 37.9 [9.0] years) and 50 648 individuals in Ohio (26 425 women [52.2%]; mean [SD] age, 37.1 [9.3] years) who received buprenorphine in 2020, with 18 250 and 24 741 people initiating buprenorphine in Kentucky and Ohio, respectively. Telemedicine buprenorphine initiations increased sharply at the beginning of 2020. Compared with nontelemedicine initiation, telemedicine initiation was associated with better odds of 90-day retention with buprenorphine in both states (Kentucky: adjusted odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.01-1.27]; Ohio: adjusted odds ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.06-1.32]) in a regression analysis adjusting for patient demographic and comorbidity characteristics. Telemedicine initiation was not associated with opioid-related nonfatal overdose (Kentucky: adjusted odds ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.56-1.40]; Ohio: adjusted odds ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.83-1.41]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study of Medicaid enrollees receiving buprenorphine for OUD, telemedicine buprenorphine initiation was associated with retention in treatment early during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings add to the literature demonstrating positive outcomes associated with the use of telemedicine for treatment of OUD.

IMPORTANCE: Little is known about the potential implications of the rapid transition to telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between telemedicine adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic and indicators of OUD treatment quality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study analyzed deidentified administrative claims data from OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Claims for telemedicine visits were included for both the prepandemic period (March 14, 2019, to March 13, 2020) and pandemic period (March 14, 2020, to March 13, 2021). Patients with OUD and continuous enrollment in either commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage plans were included. Clinicians who provided office-based OUD care were included and categorized into low, medium, or high telemedicine use groups. Patients were attributed to the clinician (and corresponding telemedicine use group) from whom they received a plurality of OUD visits. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The 4 outcomes were all outpatient visits, OUD visits (in person vs telemedicine) within 90 days of an index visit, medications for OUD (MOUD) prescribing, and OUD-related clinical events (including drug overdose, inpatient detoxification and rehabilitation center stay, or injection drug use-related infections). RESULTS: The analysis included 11 801 patients (mean [SD] age, 53.9 [15.7] years; 5902 males [50.0%]) who were treated by 1768 clinicians. Clinicians with low vs high telemedicine use conducted a mean (SD) of 2.1% (2.5%) vs 69.5% (18.6%) of their office visits virtually in the pandemic period. While telemedicine use for OUD increased significantly from the prepandemic to pandemic periods, total OUD visit volume (in person plus telemedicine) per patient episode remained stable among both high (2.6 to 2.7 visits per patient episode) and low (3.1 to 3.3 visits per patient episode) telemedicine use groups. In adjusted analyses comparing the prepandemic with pandemic periods, there was no differential change in MOUD initiation (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84-1.19), MOUD days' supply (differential change in days' supply, -0.27; 95% CI, -1.84 to 1.30), or OUD-related clinical events (adjusted OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.73-1.24) among patients who were treated by clinicians in low vs high telemedicine use groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this study revealed that clinical outcomes were similar among patients who were treated by clinicians with high and low telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that telemedicine is a comparable alternative to in-person OUD care. There was no evidence that telemedicine was associated with increased access to or improved quality of OUD treatment.

BACKGROUND: Beyond initial COVID-19 pandemic emergency expansions of telemedicine use, it is unclear how well primary care telemedicine addresses patients' needs. OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment and follow-up visits (office, emergency department, hospitalization) between primary care video or telephone telemedicine and in-person office visits. DESIGN: Retrospective design based on administrative and electronic health record (EHR) data. SETTING: Large, integrated health care delivery system with more than 1300 primary care providers, between April 2021 and December 2021 (including the COVID-19 pandemic Delta wave). PATIENTS: 1 589 014 adult patients; 26.5% were aged 65 years or older, 54.9% were female, 22.2% were Asian, 7.4% were Black, 22.3% were Hispanic, 46.5% were White, 21.5% lived in neighborhoods with lower socioeconomic status, and 31.8% had a chronic health condition. MEASUREMENTS: Treatment outcomes included medication or antibiotic prescribing and laboratory or imaging ordering. Follow-up visits included in-person visits to the primary care office or emergency department or hospitalization within 7 days. Outcomes were adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics overall and stratified by clinical area (abdominal pain, gastrointestinal concerns, back pain, dermatologic concerns, musculoskeletal pain, routine care, hypertension or diabetes, and mental health). RESULTS: Of 2 357 598 primary care visits, 50.8% used telemedicine (19.5% video and 31.3% telephone). After adjustment, medications were prescribed in 46.8% of office visits, 38.4% of video visits, and 34.6% of telephone visits. After the visit, 1.3% of in-person visits, 6.2% of video visits, and 7.6% of telephone visits had a 7-day return in-person primary care visit; 1.6% of in-person visits, 1.8% of video visits, and 2.1% of telephone visits were followed by an emergency department visit. Differences in follow-up office visits were largest after index office versus telephone visits for acute pain conditions and smallest for mental health. LIMITATIONS: In the study setting, telemedicine is fully integrated with ongoing EHRs and with clinicians, and the study examines an insured population during the late COVID-19 pandemic period. Observational comparison lacks detailed severity or symptom measures. Follow-up was limited to 7 days. Clinical area categorization uses diagnosis code rather than symptom. CONCLUSION: In-person return visits were somewhat higher after telemedicine compared with in-person primary care visits but varied by specific clinical condition. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

BACKGROUND: Frequent attenders in primary care (FAs) consume a disproportionate amount of healthcare resources and often have depression, anxiety, chronic health issues, and interpersonal problems. Despite extensive medical care, they remain dissatisfied with the care and report no improvement in quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To pilot a Telephone-based Interpersonal Counseling intervention for Frequent Attenders (TIPC-FA) and assess its feasibility and efficacy in reducing symptoms and healthcare utilization. METHOD: Top 10% of primary care visitors were randomly assigned to TIPC-FA, Telephone Supportive Contact (Support), or Treatment as Usual (TAU). TIPC-FA and Support groups received six telephone sessions over twelve weeks, while the TAU group was interviewed twice. Multilevel regression tested for changes over time, considering patient and counselor variance. RESULTS: TIPC-FA and Support groups demonstrated reduced depressive symptoms, and the TIPC-FA group showed decreased somatization and anxiety. The TIPC-FA group demonstrated a trend towards less healthcare utilization than the TAU group. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that IPC via telephone outreach is a feasible approach to treating FAs, achieving a reduction in symptoms not seen in other groups. Promising reduction in healthcare utilization in the TIPC-FA group warrants further exploration in larger-scale trials.