Cargando…

In-Clinic versus Hybrid Cancer Rehabilitation Service Delivery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Outcome Comparison Study

Diminished health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is common among cancer survivors but often amendable to rehabilitation. However, few access real-world rehabilitation services. Hybrid delivery modes (using a combination of in-clinic and synchronous telehealth visits) became popular during the COVID...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wood, Kelley C., Giri, Smith, Kendig, Tiffany D., Pergolotti, Mackenzi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10605259/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37887544
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30100644
_version_ 1785127030312927232
author Wood, Kelley C.
Giri, Smith
Kendig, Tiffany D.
Pergolotti, Mackenzi
author_facet Wood, Kelley C.
Giri, Smith
Kendig, Tiffany D.
Pergolotti, Mackenzi
author_sort Wood, Kelley C.
collection PubMed
description Diminished health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is common among cancer survivors but often amendable to rehabilitation. However, few access real-world rehabilitation services. Hybrid delivery modes (using a combination of in-clinic and synchronous telehealth visits) became popular during the COVID-19 pandemic and offer a promising solution to improve access beyond the pandemic. However, it is unclear if hybrid delivery has the same impact on patient-reported outcomes and experiences as standard, in-clinic-only delivery. To fill this gap, we performed a retrospective, observational, comparative outcomes study of real-world electronic medical record (EMR) data collected by a national outpatient rehabilitation provider in 2020–2021. Of the cases meeting the inclusion criteria (N = 2611), 60 were seen to via hybrid delivery. The outcomes evaluated pre and post-rehabilitation included PROMIS(®) global physical health (GPH), global mental health (GMH), physical function (PF), and the ability to participate in social roles and activities (SRA). The patient experience outcomes included the Net Promoter Survey (NPS(®)) and the Select Medical Patient-Reported Experience Measure (SM-PREM). A linear and logistic regression was used to examine the between-group differences in the PROMIS and SM-PREM scores while controlling for covariates. The hybrid and in-clinic-only cases improved similarly in all PROMIS outcomes (all p < 0.05). The association between the delivery mode and the likelihood of achieving the minimal important change in the PROMIS outcomes was non-significant (all p > 0.05). No between-group differences were observed in the NPS or SM-PREM scores (all p > 0.05). Although more research is needed, this real-world evidence suggests that hybrid rehabilitation care may be equally beneficial for and acceptable to cancer survivors and supports calls to expand access to and reimbursement for telerehabilitation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10605259
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106052592023-10-28 In-Clinic versus Hybrid Cancer Rehabilitation Service Delivery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Outcome Comparison Study Wood, Kelley C. Giri, Smith Kendig, Tiffany D. Pergolotti, Mackenzi Curr Oncol Article Diminished health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is common among cancer survivors but often amendable to rehabilitation. However, few access real-world rehabilitation services. Hybrid delivery modes (using a combination of in-clinic and synchronous telehealth visits) became popular during the COVID-19 pandemic and offer a promising solution to improve access beyond the pandemic. However, it is unclear if hybrid delivery has the same impact on patient-reported outcomes and experiences as standard, in-clinic-only delivery. To fill this gap, we performed a retrospective, observational, comparative outcomes study of real-world electronic medical record (EMR) data collected by a national outpatient rehabilitation provider in 2020–2021. Of the cases meeting the inclusion criteria (N = 2611), 60 were seen to via hybrid delivery. The outcomes evaluated pre and post-rehabilitation included PROMIS(®) global physical health (GPH), global mental health (GMH), physical function (PF), and the ability to participate in social roles and activities (SRA). The patient experience outcomes included the Net Promoter Survey (NPS(®)) and the Select Medical Patient-Reported Experience Measure (SM-PREM). A linear and logistic regression was used to examine the between-group differences in the PROMIS and SM-PREM scores while controlling for covariates. The hybrid and in-clinic-only cases improved similarly in all PROMIS outcomes (all p < 0.05). The association between the delivery mode and the likelihood of achieving the minimal important change in the PROMIS outcomes was non-significant (all p > 0.05). No between-group differences were observed in the NPS or SM-PREM scores (all p > 0.05). Although more research is needed, this real-world evidence suggests that hybrid rehabilitation care may be equally beneficial for and acceptable to cancer survivors and supports calls to expand access to and reimbursement for telerehabilitation. MDPI 2023-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC10605259/ /pubmed/37887544 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30100644 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Wood, Kelley C.
Giri, Smith
Kendig, Tiffany D.
Pergolotti, Mackenzi
In-Clinic versus Hybrid Cancer Rehabilitation Service Delivery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Outcome Comparison Study
title In-Clinic versus Hybrid Cancer Rehabilitation Service Delivery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Outcome Comparison Study
title_full In-Clinic versus Hybrid Cancer Rehabilitation Service Delivery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Outcome Comparison Study
title_fullStr In-Clinic versus Hybrid Cancer Rehabilitation Service Delivery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Outcome Comparison Study
title_full_unstemmed In-Clinic versus Hybrid Cancer Rehabilitation Service Delivery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Outcome Comparison Study
title_short In-Clinic versus Hybrid Cancer Rehabilitation Service Delivery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Outcome Comparison Study
title_sort in-clinic versus hybrid cancer rehabilitation service delivery during the covid-19 pandemic: an outcome comparison study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10605259/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37887544
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30100644
work_keys_str_mv AT woodkelleyc inclinicversushybridcancerrehabilitationservicedeliveryduringthecovid19pandemicanoutcomecomparisonstudy
AT girismith inclinicversushybridcancerrehabilitationservicedeliveryduringthecovid19pandemicanoutcomecomparisonstudy
AT kendigtiffanyd inclinicversushybridcancerrehabilitationservicedeliveryduringthecovid19pandemicanoutcomecomparisonstudy
AT pergolottimackenzi inclinicversushybridcancerrehabilitationservicedeliveryduringthecovid19pandemicanoutcomecomparisonstudy