Search

J Med Internet Res 2022;24(9):e38746 doi:10.2196/38746 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comorbidity between musculoskeletal (MSK) pain and depression is highly common, and is associated with a greater symptom burden and greater loss of work productivity than either condition alone. Multimodal care programs tackling both physical and mental health components may maximize productivity recovery and return to work. Digital delivery of such programs can facilitate access, ensure continuity of care, and enhance patient engagement.Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of a completely remote multimodal digital care program (DCP) for MSK pain on mental health and work-related outcomes stratified by baseline depression levels.Methods: Ad hoc analysis of an interventional, single-arm, cohort study of individuals with MSK pain undergoing a DCP was performed. Three subgroups with different baseline depression severity levels were established based on responses to the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9): cluster 1 (score<5: minimal depression), cluster 2 (scores 5-10: mild depression), and cluster 3 (score≥10: moderate depression). The mean changes in depression, anxiety, fear-avoidance beliefs, work productivity, and activity impairment and adherence between baseline and end of program (8-12 weeks) were assessed across subgroups by latent growth curve analysis.Results: From a total of 7785 eligible participants, 6137 (78.83%) were included in cluster 1, 1158 (14.87%) in cluster 2, and 490 (6.29%) in cluster 3. Significant improvements in depression and anxiety scores were observed in clusters 2 and 3 but not in cluster 1, with average end-of-the program scores in clusters 2 and 3 below the initially defined cluster thresholds (score of 5 and 10, respectively). All clusters reported significant improvements in productivity impairment scores (mean changes from -16.82, 95% CI -20.32 to -13.42 in cluster 1 to -20.10, 95% CI -32.64 to -7.57 in cluster 3). Higher adherence was associated with higher improvements in depression in clusters 2 and 3, and with greater recovery in activities of daily living in cluster 3. Overall patient satisfaction was 8.59/10.0 (SD 1.74).Conclusions: A multimodal DCP was able to promote improvements in productivity impairment scores comparable to those previously reported in the literature, even in participants with comorbid depression and anxiety. These results reinforce the need to follow a biopsychosocial framework to optimize outcomes in patients with MSK pain.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04092946; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04092946. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Digital health has the potential to revolutionize health care by improving accessibility, patient experience, outcomes, productivity, safety, and cost efficiency. In England, the NHS (National Health Service) Long Term Plan promised the right to access digital-first primary care by March 31, 2024. However, there are few global, fully digital-first providers and limited research into their effects on cost from a health system perspective.Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of highly accessible, digital-first primary care on acute hospital spending.Methods: A retrospective, observational analysis compared acute hospital spending on patients registered to a 24/7, digital-first model of NHS primary care with that on patients registered to all other practices in North West London Collaboration of Clinical Commissioning Groups. Acute hospital spending data per practice were obtained under a freedom of information request. Three versions of NHS techniques designed to fairly allocate funding according to need were used to standardize or "weight" the practice populations; hence, there are 3 results for each year. The weighting adjusted the populations for characteristics that impact health care spending, such as age, sex, and deprivation. The total spending was divided by the number of standardized or weighted patients to give the spending per weighted patient, which was used to compare the 2 groups in the NHS financial years (FY) 2018-2019 (FY18/19) and 2019-2020 (FY19/20). FY18/19 costs were adjusted for inflation, so they were comparable with the values of FY19/20.Results: The NHS spending on acute hospital care for 2.43 million and 2.54 million people (FY18/19 and FY19/20) across 358 practices and 49 primary care networks was £1.6 billion and £1.65 billion (a currency exchange rate of £1=US $1.38 is applicable), respectively. The spending on acute care per weighted patient for Babylon GP at Hand members was 12%, 31%, and 54% (£93, P=.047; £223, P<.001; and £389, P<.001) lower than the regional average in FY18/19 for the 3 weighting methodologies used. In FY19/20, it was 15%, 35%, and 51% (£114, P=.006; £246, P<.001; and £362, P<.001) lower. This amounted to lower costs for the Babylon GP at Hand population of £1.37, £4.40 million, and £11.6 million, respectively, in FY18/19; and £3.26 million, £9.54 million, and £18.8 million, respectively, in FY19/20.Conclusions: Patients with access to 24/7, digital-first primary care incurred significantly lower acute hospital costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Electronic visits (e-visits) involve asynchronous communication between clinicians and patients through a secure web-based platform, such as a patient portal, to elicit symptoms and determine a diagnosis and treatment plan. E-visits are now reimbursable through Medicare due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The state of evidence regarding e-visits, such as the impact on clinical outcomes and health care delivery, is unclear.Objective: To address this gap, we examine how e-visits have impacted clinical outcomes and health care quality, access, utilization, and costs.Methods: We conducted a systematic review; MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from January 2000 through October 2020 for peer-reviewed studies that assessed e-visits' impacts on clinical and health care delivery outcomes.Results: Out of 1859 papers, 19 met the inclusion criteria. E-visit usage was associated with improved or comparable clinical outcomes, especially for chronic disease management (eg, diabetes care, blood pressure management). The impact on quality of care varied across conditions. Quality of care was equivalent or better for chronic conditions, but variable quality was observed in infection management (eg, appropriate antibiotic prescribing). Similarly, the impact on health care utilization varied across conditions (eg, lower utilization for dermatology but mixed impact in primary care). Health care costs were lower for e-visits than those for in-person visits for a wide range of conditions (eg, dermatology and acute visits). No studies examined the impact of e-visits on health care access. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions about effectiveness or impact on care delivery from the studies that were included because many used observational designs.Conclusions: Overall, the evidence suggests e-visits may provide clinical outcomes that are comparable to those provided by in-person care and reduce health care costs for certain health care conditions. At the same time, there is mixed evidence on health care quality, especially regarding infection management (eg, sinusitis, urinary tract infections, conjunctivitis). Further studies are needed to test implementation strategies that might improve delivery (eg, clinical decision support for antibiotic prescribing) and to assess which conditions can be managed via e-visits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]