Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, use of telemedicine (TM) increased dramatically, but it is unclear how use varies by characteristics of people with Alzheimer's disease (AD), multiple sclerosis (MS), or Parkinson's disease (PD).MethodsThis cross-sectional study used US PharMetrics Plus commercial claims data from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. TM use (≥1 Current Procedural Terminology code) was assessed in each study year (2019, 2020, and 2021) among people with ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient diagnosis codes ≥30 days apart for AD, MS, or PD. Any TM use and disease-related visits (AD, MS, or PD diagnosis code within TM claim) were summarized, and characteristics of TM users versus nonusers during the pandemic (2020 and 2021) were described.ResultsAmong people with AD, MS, or PD, 0.9% used TM in 2019 versus 58.0% in 2020 and 42.5% in 2021. Among TM users in 2020 and 2021, the majority had TM visits related to their neurological disorder (73.2% and 64.6%, respectively). During the pandemic, approximately 25% of total TM visits (n = 296,434) were provided by a neurologist. Mean (SD) age of TM users was similar to nonusers (60.5 [15.1] and 61.5 [15.3] years), but TM users were more likely to be female (62% vs 60%), enrolled in Medicare (33% vs 30%), and reside in western (64.2% vs 35.8%) or eastern (61.0% vs 39.0%) regions versus nonusers.ConclusionsAlthough results indicate expanded use of and access to TM among people with AD, MS, or PD, differences in patient and health care provider characteristics for TM use were notable.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.