7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Medical Oncology Professionals’ Perceptions of Telehealth Video Visits

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          How do medical oncologists perceive telehealth video visits for cancer care?

          Findings

          In this qualitative study, in which 29 medical oncology health professionals were interviewed prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the barriers to and benefits of telehealth video visits were elucidated. Although oncologists disagreed on the scope of a virtual physical examination and the financial impact of video visits, most recognized the benefit of eliminating travel and the challenge of delivering serious or bad news.

          Meaning

          Differing opinions of medical oncology health professionals regarding the barriers to and benefits of telehealth video visits provide insight into the challenges that limit telehealth quality as well as its expansion potential.

          Abstract

          This qualitative study surveyed physicians and other health professionals working in oncology to determine the perceived advantages and disadvantages of telehealth video visits in cancer care.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Telehealth has emerged as a means of improving access and reducing cost for medical oncology care; however, use by specialists prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic still remained low. Medical oncology professionals’ perceptions of telehealth for cancer care are largely unknown, but are critical to telehealth utilization and expansion efforts.

          Objective

          To identify medical oncology health professionals’ perceptions of the barriers to and benefits of telehealth video visits.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This qualitative study used interviews conducted from October 30, 2019, to March 5, 2020, of medical oncology health professionals at the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, an urban academic health system in the US with a cancer center. All medical oncology physicians, physicians assistants, and nurse practitioners at the hospital were eligible to participate. A combination of volunteer and convenience sampling was used, resulting in the participation of 29 medical oncology health professionals, including 20 physicians and 9 advanced practice professionals, in semistructured interviews.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Medical oncology health professionals’ perceptions of barriers to and benefits of telehealth video visits as experienced by patients receiving cancer treatment.

          Results

          Of the 29 participants, 15 (52%) were women and 22 (76%) were White, with a mean (SD) age of 48.5 (12.0) years. Respondents’ perceptions were organized using the 4 domains of the National Quality Forum framework: clinical effectiveness, patient experience, access to care, and financial impact. Respondents disagreed on the clinical effectiveness and potential limitations of the virtual physical examination, as well as on the financial impact on patients. Respondents also largely recognized the convenience and improved access to care enabled by telehealth for patients. However, many reported concern regarding the health professional–patient relationship and their limited ability to comfort patients in a virtual setting.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Medical oncology health professionals shared conflicting opinions regarding the barriers to and benefits of telehealth in regard to clinical effectiveness, patient experience, access to care, and financial impact. Understanding oncologists’ perceptions of telehealth elucidates potential barriers that need to be further investigated or improved for telehealth expansion and continued utilization; further research is ongoing to assess current perceptions of health professionals and patients given the rapid expansion of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

          Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic.

            Items such as physical exam findings, radiographic interpretations, or other diagnostic tests often rely on some degree of subjective interpretation by observers. Studies that measure the agreement between two or more observers should include a statistic that takes into account the fact that observers will sometimes agree or disagree simply by chance. The kappa statistic (or kappa coefficient) is the most commonly used statistic for this purpose. A kappa of 1 indicates perfect agreement, whereas a kappa of 0 indicates agreement equivalent to chance. A limitation of kappa is that it is affected by the prevalence of the finding under observation. Methods to overcome this limitation have been described.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The empirical foundations of telemedicine interventions for chronic disease management.

              The telemedicine intervention in chronic disease management promises to involve patients in their own care, provides continuous monitoring by their healthcare providers, identifies early symptoms, and responds promptly to exacerbations in their illnesses. This review set out to establish the evidence from the available literature on the impact of telemedicine for the management of three chronic diseases: congestive heart failure, stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. By design, the review focuses on a limited set of representative chronic diseases because of their current and increasing importance relative to their prevalence, associated morbidity, mortality, and cost. Furthermore, these three diseases are amenable to timely interventions and secondary prevention through telemonitoring. The preponderance of evidence from studies using rigorous research methods points to beneficial results from telemonitoring in its various manifestations, albeit with a few exceptions. Generally, the benefits include reductions in use of service: hospital admissions/re-admissions, length of hospital stay, and emergency department visits typically declined. It is important that there often were reductions in mortality. Few studies reported neutral or mixed findings.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                14 January 2021
                January 2021
                14 January 2021
                : 4
                : 1
                : e2033967
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
                [2 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
                [3 ]Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: November 28, 2020.
                Published: January 14, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.33967
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Heyer A et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Arianna Heyer, BA, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, 1025 Walnut St, Ste 700, Philadelphia, PA 19107 ( Arianna.heyer@ 123456jefferson.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Handley, the principal investigator, had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Mss Heyer and Granberg were co–first authors.
                Concept and design: Heyer, Rising, Binder, Handley.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Heyer, Granberg, Rising, Binder, Handley.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Heyer, Granberg, Gentsch.
                Obtained funding: Binder, Handley.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Heyer, Rising, Gentsch, Handley.
                Supervision: Rising, Binder, Handley.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Handley reported serving as the site principal investigator for a multi-center phase 3 clinical trial sponsored by Nektar Therapeutics, ending on June 30, 2020, outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This research was funded through the Provost’s Pilot Clinical Research Award, an internal grant at Thomas Jefferson University. The principal investigator receiving the award was Dr Handley, and the coinvestigators were Drs Binder and Rising. Publication was made possible in part by support from the Thomas Jefferson University Open Access Fund, the Jefferson College of Population Health, and the Sidney Kimmel Medical College.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi201031
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.33967
                7809588
                33443581
                a7339526-c999-4f72-8d32-2762c324df3d
                Copyright 2021 Heyer A et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 14 August 2020
                : 28 November 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Oncology

                Comments

                Comment on this article