INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has required a shift of many routine primary care visits to telemedicine, potentially widening disparities in care access among vulnerable populations. In a publicly-funded HIV clinic, we aimed to evaluate a pre-visit phone-based planning intervention to address anticipated barriers to telemedicine. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of patients scheduled for a phone-based HIV primary care visit at the Ward 86 HIV clinic in San Francisco from 15 April to 15 May 2020. Once reached by phone, patients were randomized to either have a structured pre-visit planning intervention to address barriers to an upcoming telemedicine visit versus a standard reminder call. The primary outcome was telemedicine visit attendance. RESULTS: Of 476 scheduled telemedicine visits, 280 patients were reached by a pre-visit call to offer enrollment. Patients were less likely to be reached if virally unsuppressed (odds ratio (OR) 0.11, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.03-0.48), CD4 < 200 (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.85), or were homeless (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.87). There was no difference between intervention and control in scheduled visit attendance (83% v. 78%, OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.67-2.81). CONCLUSIONS: A structured phone-based planning call to address barriers to telemedicine in a public HIV clinic was less likely to reach patients with poorly-controlled HIV and patients experiencing homelessness, suggesting additional interventions may be needed in this population to ensure access to telemedicine-based care. Among patients reachable by phone, telemedicine visit attendance was high and not improved with a structured pre-visit intervention, suggesting that standard reminders may be adequate in this population.
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has required a shift of many routine primary care visits to telemedicine, potentially widening disparities in care access among vulnerable populations. In a publicly-funded HIV clinic, we aimed to evaluate a pre-visit phone-based planning intervention to address anticipated barriers to telemedicine. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of patients scheduled for a phone-based HIV primary care visit at the Ward 86 HIV clinic in San Francisco from 15 April to 15 May 2020. Once reached by phone, patients were randomized to either have a structured pre-visit planning intervention to address barriers to an upcoming telemedicine visit versus a standard reminder call. The primary outcome was telemedicine visit attendance. RESULTS: Of 476 scheduled telemedicine visits, 280 patients were reached by a pre-visit call to offer enrollment. Patients were less likely to be reached if virally unsuppressed (odds ratio (OR) 0.11, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.03-0.48), CD4 < 200 (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.85), or were homeless (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.87). There was no difference between intervention and control in scheduled visit attendance (83% v. 78%, OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.67-2.81). CONCLUSIONS: A structured phone-based planning call to address barriers to telemedicine in a public HIV clinic was less likely to reach patients with poorly-controlled HIV and patients experiencing homelessness, suggesting additional interventions may be needed in this population to ensure access to telemedicine-based care. Among patients reachable by phone, telemedicine visit attendance was high and not improved with a structured pre-visit intervention, suggesting that standard reminders may be adequate in this population.
Authors: Jen Lau; Janine Knudsen; Hannah Jackson; Andrew B Wallach; Michael Bouton; Shaw Natsui; Christopher Philippou; Erfan Karim; David M Silvestri; Lynsey Avalone; Milana Zaurova; Daniel Schatz; Vivian Sun; Dave A Chokshi Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Dima Dandachi; Bich N Dang; Brandon Lucari; Michelle Teti; Thomas P Giordano Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Laura A Giordano; Marc N Elliott; Elizabeth Goldstein; William G Lehrman; Patrice A Spencer Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: D Keith McInnes; Leon Sawh; Beth Ann Petrakis; Sowmya Rao; Stephanie L Shimada; Karin M Eyrich-Garg; Allen L Gifford; Henry D Anaya; David A Smelson Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2014-07-21 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Rhea E Powell; Jeffrey M Henstenburg; Grace Cooper; Judd E Hollander; Kristin L Rising Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Michael J Mugavero; Andrew O Westfall; Stephen R Cole; Elvin H Geng; Heidi M Crane; Mari M Kitahata; W Christopher Mathews; Sonia Napravnik; Joseph J Eron; Richard D Moore; Jeanne C Keruly; Kenneth H Mayer; Thomas P Giordano; James L Raper Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Julia C Dombrowski; Meena Ramchandani; Shireesha Dhanireddy; Robert D Harrington; Allison Moore; Matthew R Golden Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Ofole Mgbako; Emily H Miller; Anthony F Santoro; Robert H Remien; Noga Shalev; Susan Olender; Peter Gordon; Magda E Sobieszczyk Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2020-07
Authors: D Keith McInnes; Gemmae M Fix; Jeffrey L Solomon; Beth Ann Petrakis; Leon Sawh; David A Smelson Journal: PeerJ Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Elizabeth Imbert; Matthew D Hickey; Jan Bing Del Rosario; Madellena Conte; Andrew D Kerkhoff; Angelo Clemenzi-Allen; Elise D Riley; Diane V Havlir; Monica Gandhi Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: Marjan Javanbakht; Allison Rosen; Amy Ragsdale; E India Richter; Steven Shoptaw; Pamina M Gorbach Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 5.801
Authors: Julia Corey; James Lyons; Austin O'Carroll; Richie Stafford; Jo-Hanna Ivers Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 3.390