Telemedicine
Conditions
Keywords
telemedicine, audio/video, telephone, primary care
Brief summary
The inability to access and use smartphones or camera-outfitted internet-connected devices during the COVID-19 pandemic relegates certain patients to receive audio-only telemedicine instead of audio/video-based telemedicine. The investigators are conducting a randomized controlled trial in order to characterize patient and provider attitudes towards these two modalities of care and to test the feasibility of a new model to make tablets for video-based care accessible to those who need that. The investigators hypothesize that patient and provider satisfaction will be higher with video-based telehealth when compared to phone-based telehealth.
Interventions
OTHERInternet-connected computer tablet
An internet-connected tablet provided to patient for upcoming visit with physician by audio/video which can also be used to complete a survey.
Sponsors
Johns Hopkins University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Adult patients scheduled for telephone-based visits who are doing so because of a lack of ability to conduct a video visit (i.e. no tablet/laptop; no access to internet) who live in Baltimore City
Exclusion criteria
* Patients with significant visual or hearing impairment * Patients that have legal guardians or who are marked as lacking healthcare decision-making capacity * Patients that have not selected English as their preferred language
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Provider rating as assessed by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems question on provider rating | Within 2 weeks of the study visit | Provider rating will be assessed with the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems question on provider rating of 0-10; 0 being worst provider possible and 10 being best provider possible. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction with telemedicine visit for provider as assessed by a Likert scale | Within 2 weeks of the study visit | Satisfaction with telemedicine visit for provider will be assessed with Likert-scale questions related to satisfaction. \[1=Strongly Disagree. 5=Strongly Agree\]. 1. In general, I was satisfied with using telemedicine for this visit 2. Talking to the patient was as satisfying as talking in person. Overall score 2 to 10 with higher scores signifying better satisfaction. |
| Efficacy of telemedicine visit for provider as assessed by a Likert scale | Within 2 weeks of the study visit | Efficacy of telemedicine visit for provider will be assessed with Likert-scale questions related to efficacy. \[1=Strongly Disagree. 5=Strongly Agree\]. b. I was able to understand the patient's explanation of their medical problems well enough. c. In general, this telemedicine visit was effective in improving this patient's medical care d. An in-person visit would likely have provided additional clinically-relevant information e. An in-person visit would likely have led to a change in management |
| Provider communication as assessed by yes/no question | Within 2 weeks of the study visit | The ability of a provider to communicate will be assessed by patients with the yes/no question of a modified version of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems questionnaire related to communication. Did this provider explain things in a way that was easy to understand? Yes/No |
| Satisfaction with telemedicine visit for patient as assessed by a Likert scale | Within 2 weeks of the study visit | Satisfaction with telemedicine visit for patient will be assessed with Likert-scale questions related to satisfaction. Satisfaction (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). 1. In general, I was satisfied with using a video or phone call for this visit 2. I could explain my medical problems well enough 3. Talking to the doctor was as satisfying as talking in person Overall score 3 to 15 with higher scores signifying better satisfaction. |
| Provider respect as assessed by yes/no question | Within 2 weeks of the study visit | Provider respect will be assessed by patients with the yes/no question of a modified version of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems questionnaire relating to respect. Did this provider show respect for what you had to say? Yes/No |
| Provider time spent as assessed by yes/no question | Within 2 weeks of the study visit | Provider time spent will be assessed by patients with the yes/no question of a modified version of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems questionnaire relating to time spent during the clinical encounter. Did this provider spend enough time with you? Yes/No |
| Patient health rating as assessed by a likert scale | Within 2 weeks of the study visit | Patient health will be assessed with Likert-scale questions related to patient health. In general, how would you rate your overall health? 1. Excellent 2. Very good 3. Good 4. Fair 5. Poor In general, how would you rate your overall mental or emotional health? 1. Excellent 2. Very good 3. Good 4. Fair 5. Poor Overall score 2 to 10 with lower scores signifying better health. |
| Provider listening as assessed by yes/no question | Within 2 weeks of the study visit | Provider listening will be assessed by patients with the yes/no question of a modified version of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems questionnaire related to listening. Did this provider listen carefully to you? Yes/No |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed