Comparing Federal Communications Commission and Microsoft Estimates of Broadband Access for Mental Health Video Telemedicine Among Veterans: Retrospective Cohort Study.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of telemedicine in health care. However, video telemedicine requires adequate broadband internet speeds. As video-based telemedicine grows, variations in broadband access must be accurately measured and characterized.
This study aims to compare the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Microsoft US broadband use data sources to measure county-level broadband access among veterans receiving mental health care from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).
Retrospective observational cohort study using administrative data to identify mental health visits from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, among 1161 VHA mental health clinics. The exposure is county-level broadband percentages calculated as the percentage of the county population with access to adequate broadband speeds (ie, download >25 megabits per second) as measured by the FCC and Microsoft. All veterans receiving VHA mental health services during the study period were included and categorized based on their use of video mental health visits. Broadband access was compared between and within data sources, stratified by video versus no video telemedicine use.
Over the 2-year study period, 1,474,024 veterans with VHA mental health visits were identified. Average broadband percentages varied by source (FCC mean 91.3%, SD 12.5% vs Microsoft mean 48.2%, SD 18.1%; P<.001). Within each data source, broadband percentages generally increased from 2019 to 2020. Adjusted regression analyses estimated the change after pandemic onset versus before the pandemic in quarterly county-based mental health visit counts at prespecified broadband percentages. Using FCC model estimates, given all other covariates are constant and assuming an FCC percentage set at 70%, the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of county-level quarterly mental video visits during the COVID-19 pandemic was 6.81 times (95% CI 6.49-7.13) the rate before the pandemic. In comparison, the model using Microsoft data exhibited a stronger association (IRR 7.28; 95% CI 6.78-7.81). This relationship held across all broadband access levels assessed.
This study found FCC broadband data estimated higher and less variable county-level broadband percentages compared to those estimated using Microsoft data. Regardless of the data source, veterans without mental health video visits lived in counties with lower broadband access, highlighting the need for accurate broadband speeds to prioritize infrastructure and intervention development based on the greatest community-level impacts. Future work should link broadband access to differences in clinical outcomes.
O'Shea AM
,Mulligan K
,Carter KD
,Haraldsson B
,Wray CM
,Shahnazi A
,Kaboli PJ
... -
《JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH》
Postpartum hospital use among survivors of intimate partner violence.
More than 1 in 3 individuals who identify as female, experience either intimate partner violence (IPV) or sexual assault during their lifetime, and sexual violence committed by an intimate partner is at its highest during their reproductive years.1 As many as 20% of pregnant individuals may experience IPV, and IPV during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk for adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, making pregnant individuals an especially vulnerable population.1 In fact, >50% of pregnancy-associated suicides and >45% of pregnancy-associated homicides are associated with IPV and these often occur during the postpartum period.2 Although >50% of maternal deaths occur postpartum,3 little research has examined whether IPV is associated with markers of postpartum maternal morbidity, including hospital readmission and emergency department (ED) visits.4 In addition, few studies have examined the feasibility of ascertaining IPV at the delivery hospitalization using billing codes. Although the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes include factors related to social determinants of health, ICD-10 codes are largely underutilized for the purpose of understanding risk of disease and adverse outcomes.5 The primary objective of this study was to investigate the association of IPV screening at delivery with the incidence of postpartum hospital use. Another objective was to examine the possibility of using ICD-10 codes at the delivery hospitalization to identify IPV in pregnant individuals.
This was a retrospective cohort of birth data linked with inpatient and outpatient hospital claims data, including deliveries of individuals residing in the New York City metropolitan area between 2016 and 2018. Thirty-day hospital use was ascertained by either a readmission or an ED visit within 30 days of discharge. We identified the incidence of IPV from the delivery hospital discharge records using 36 IPV-related ICD-10 codes that we identified in the literature, including those defined for adult psychological and sexual abuse. We estimated the associations between IPV identified during the delivery hospitalization and postpartum hospital use using a multivariable logistic regression and separately adjusting for demographic and structural determinants of health, psychosocial factors, comorbidities, and obstetrical complications. All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). This study was approved by our institutional review board.
IPV was indicated on the discharge records of 348 individuals (0.11%). As shown in the Table, the overall incidence of ED visits among individuals with an IPV-related diagnosis was 12.9%. The incidence of a postpartum ED visit was significantly higher among individuals with an IPV diagnosis than among those without (odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-3.9), and this was true after sequentially adjusting for demographic and structural determinants of health (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7), comorbidities and pregnancy complications (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6), psychosocial factors (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0), and obstetrical complications (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0). The incidence of either a postpartum ED visit or readmission was also higher among those patients with an IPV-related diagnosis (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.0-3.6). However, there was no significant difference in postpartum readmissions alone among patients with or without an IPV-related diagnosis.
This study established that postpartum ED visits are significantly higher among individuals with an IPV-related diagnosis during the delivery hospitalization in a large citywide database, even after adjusting for established risk factors for postpartum ED use. Because ED visits have been identified as a possible marker of maternal morbidity and mortality,4 this finding may suggest that individuals affected by IPV could benefit from screening throughout pregnancy, including during the delivery hospitalization, to prevent adverse postpartum outcomes. However, as established in this study, IPV identified solely by ICD-10 codes during the delivery hospitalization is rare and likely underreported. It is possible that underdetection of IPV is because of insufficient clinician screening, a lack of documentation in the medical records using ICD-10 codes, and the medical status of the pregnant individual at the time of delivery. This finding demonstrates a need to screen and record findings thoroughly during the pregnancy period, including at delivery hospitalization, for any IPV-related diagnoses. A limitation of our data is that we were not able to ascertain hospital use outside of New York City and did not include other time points during an individual's pregnancy. Future research should identify at which time points IPV screening occurs during care of a pregnant individual and whether this may affect postpartum ED visit rates. As a clinical outcome, maternal mortality is preventable and screening for risk factors such as IPV throughout the perinatal period, including at delivery admission and during the postpartum period, is imperative for comprehensive obstetrics care.
Rao MG
,Stone J
,Glazer KB
,Howell EA
,Janevic T
... -
《-》