Search

Background: Literature on telehealth interventions for older adults has been primarily on asynchronous interventions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, older adult exercise programs transitioned to an online format. This systematic review and case study examines the effectiveness of older adult live video exercise group interventions on physical health with insights from a Los Angeles VA program, Gerofit. Methods: PubMed was searched for live video older adult exercise groups from database inception to November 2021. All eligible studies included assessments of physical health and were limited to participants with an average age of 65 years or greater. Ten Veterans, who had participated in both in-person and virtual Gerofit sessions, were surveyed in the case study. Results: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Four studies included an equivalent in-person group as a comparator to the live video group and reported no significant between-group differences in outcomes, including energy expenditure and 6-minute walking distance test (6MWD). The other five studies reported statistically significant in-group improvement in outcomes including isokinetic knee strength. Case study participants reported similar attendance rates and perceived benefits, such as improved balance, when comparing virtual and in-person sessions. Discussion: Live video exercise groups in older adults demonstrated an improvement in physical function that was not statistically different from the comparison in-person sessions with the added benefit of averaging a higher attendance rate, providing initial support for the use of live video in older adult exercise programs. Insights from the case study supplement this by demonstrating older adults' positive attitude on these groups.

The Toolkit for Optimal Recovery (TOR) is a mind-body program for patients with acute orthopedic injuries who are at risk for persistent pain/disability. In preparation for a multisite feasibility trial of TOR at three orthopedic trauma centers, we aim to qualitatively identify barriers and facilitators to study implementation and strategies to mitigate the implementation barriers and leverage facilitators.We conducted 18 live video focus groups among providers and three one-on-one interviews with department chiefs at Level 1 trauma centers in three geographically diverse sites (N = 79 participants). Using a content analysis approach, we detected the site-specific barriers and facilitators of implementation of TOR clinical trial. We organized the data according to 26 constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), mapped to three Proctor implementation outcomes relevant to the desired study outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility). Across the three sites, we mapped six of the CFIR constructs to acceptability, eight to appropriateness, and three to feasibility. Prominent perceived barriers across all three sites were related to providers' lack of knowledge/comfort addressing psychosocial factors, and organizational cultures of prioritizing workflow efficiency over patients' psychosocial needs (acceptability), poor fit between TOR clinical trial and the fast-paced clinic structure as well as basic needs of some patients (appropriateness), and limited resources (feasibility). Suggestions to maximize the implementation of the TOR trial included provision of knowledge/tools to improve providers' confidence, streamlining study recruitment procedures, creating a learning collaborative, tailoring the study protocol based on local needs assessments, exercising flexibility in conducting research, dedicating research staff, and identifying/promoting champions and using novel incentive structures with regular check-ins, while keeping study procedures as nonobtrusive and language as de-stigmatizing as possible. These data could serve as a blueprint for implementation of clinical research and innovations in orthopedic and other medical settings., (© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2022. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The regulation of telemedicine in the United States is evolving, with new legislation expanding reimbursement and cross-state licensing capabilities. As telemedicine grows, communities with limited access to traditional dermatologic care may find a solution in teledermatology. A search of the medical literature and online health care law resources published within the past decade was performed to assess the current status of telemedicine availability, health record integration and security, reimbursement policy, and licensure requirements in the United States, with a focus on teledermatology. The majority of states have implemented policies requiring private insurance coverage. Medicaid reimburses some form of telemedicine in all states but restricts which modalities can be used and by which specialties. Medicare places the heaviest limitations on telemedicine coverage. Twenty-four states and Guam are members of the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (IMLC), and 27 states offer alternative cross-state practice options. With the advent of publicly and privately funded programs, volunteer efforts, and mobile applications, teledermatology is more readily available to rural and underserved communities., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)