Home › Research › Disparities
Racial and ethnic differences in telemedicine use among community-dwelling older adults with dementia
Qiuyuan Qin, Helena Temkin-Greener, Peter Veazie, Shubing Cai. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2024-06-05
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
The analytical sample size of the study was 2,068,937, including 9.9% Black, 82.7% White, and 7.4% Hispanic individuals. In general, we observed a decreasing trend of tele-EM use, and the average rate of quarterly tele-EM use was 23.0%. Tele-EM utilization varied by individual race, ethnicity, and community-level socioeconomic status. On average, White and Black individuals in deprived communities were 3.5 and 2.4 percentage-points less likely to use tele-EM compared with their counterparts in less-deprived communities (p < 0.001). However, Hispanic individuals in deprived communities were 2.4 percentage-points more likely to utilize tele-EM compared with those in less-deprived communities (p < 0.001). Additionally, we observed various racial and ethnic differences in telemedicine use in deprived communities versus less-deprived communities. We observed various racial and ethnic differences in telemedicine use, both within and between communities by socioeconomic status. Telemedicine is a viable healthcare delivery option that may influence healthcare access for racial and ethnic minorities and for individuals in socioeconomically deprived communities. Further policies or interventions may be needed to ensure all individuals have equal access to newly available care delivery models.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Qin, Q., Temkin-Greener, H., Veazie, P., & Cai, S. (2024). Racial and ethnic differences in telemedicine use among community-dwelling older adults with dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19039
Vancouver
Qin Q, Temkin-Greener H, Veazie P, Cai S. Racial and ethnic differences in telemedicine use among community-dwelling older adults with dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2024. doi:10.1111/jgs.19039. PMID: 38838690.
BibTeX
@article{qin2024-38838690,
author = {Qin, Qiuyuan and Temkin-Greener, Helena and Veazie, Peter and Cai, Shubing},
title = {{Racial and ethnic differences in telemedicine use among community-dwelling older adults with dementia}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1111/jgs.19039},
pmid = {38838690},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19039}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The analytical sample size of the study was 2,068,937, including 9.9% Black, 82.7% White, and 7.4% Hispanic individuals.
- In general, we observed a decreasing trend of tele-EM use, and the average rate of quarterly tele-EM use was 23.0%.
- Tele-EM utilization varied by individual race, ethnicity, and community-level socioeconomic status.
- On average, White and Black individuals in deprived communities were 3.5 and 2.4 percentage-points less likely to use tele-EM compared with their counterparts in less-deprived communities (p < 0.001).
- However, Hispanic individuals in deprived communities were 2.4 percentage-points more likely to utilize tele-EM compared with those in less-deprived communities (p < 0.001).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Effect size9.9%; 82.7%; 7.4%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 63/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 35 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 63 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38838690) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 35 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 63 out of 100. |
| Total | 63 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Disparities
Also tagged “costs”
265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.