Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Using telehealth consultations for healthcare provision to patients from racial/ethnic minorities: A systematic review

View ORCID ProfileMandy Truong, Ladan Yeganeh, Olivia Cook, Kimberley Crawford, Pauline Wong, Jacqueline Allen
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.25.21262592
Mandy Truong
1Monash Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
2Menzies School of Health Research, Northern Territory, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Mandy Truong
  • For correspondence: mandy.truong@monash.edu
Ladan Yeganeh
1Monash Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Olivia Cook
1Monash Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kimberley Crawford
1Monash Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pauline Wong
1Monash Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jacqueline Allen
1Monash Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Objective The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a rapid adoption of telehealth consultations, potentially creating new barriers to healthcare access for racial/ethnic minorities. This systematic review explored the use of telehealth consultations for people from racial/ethnic minority populations in relation to health outcomes, access to care, implementation facilitators and barriers, and satisfaction with care.

Materials and Methods This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis and the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Five major databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Screening, full-text review, quality appraisal and data extraction were all completed independently and in duplicate. A convergent integrated approach to data synthesis was applied with findings reported narratively.

Results A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. Telehealth-delivered interventions were mostly effective for the treatment/management of physical and mental health conditions including depression, diabetes and hypertension. In several studies, telehealth improved access to care by providing financial and time benefits to patients. Technological difficulties were the main barriers to effective telehealth consultation, although overall satisfaction with telehealth-delivered care was high.

Discussion Telehealth-delivered care for racial/ethnic minorities offers promise across a range of conditions and outcomes, particularly when delivered in the patient’s preferred language. However, telehealth may be problematic for some due to cost and limited digital and health literacy.

Conclusion The development and implementation of guidelines, policies and practices in relation to telehealth consultations for racial/ethnic minorities should consider the barriers and facilitators identified in this review to ensure existing health disparities are not exacerbated.

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE

The global COVID-19 pandemic has seen a rapid adoption of telehealth in lieu of face-to-face consultations due to the need for social distancing and minimization of patient and healthcare provider physical contact.[1–3] As a result, the use of telehealth to deliver healthcare services has become widespread.[4] Implementation of this fast transition has been ad hoc with little evidence to guide such widespread adoption. Consequently, there is a risk that quality of care could be compromised and new access barriers may emerge for underserved groups such as racial and ethnic minorities who already experience health disparities.[5 ,6]

Telehealth consultations, including telemedicine, involve the use of telecommunication technologies between healthcare providers from any healthcare or social care discipline and patients in real time to transmit voice, images and data for healthcare and health education.[7] Using telehealth consultations, healthcare providers can deliver healthcare services and information directly to patients located elsewhere, addressing access problems related to distance and transport, waiting times, cost and limited patient and clinician time.[7–10] Pre-COVID-19, telehealth consultations in Western countries were largely limited to rural and remote patients, psychiatry or niche subspecialties such as cancer genetics.[11–14]

Existing systematic reviews of telehealth consultations have been conducted in a variety of clinical settings with generally positive findings in relation to patient satisfaction outcomes and consultation effectiveness.[15–17] In a review of quantitative studies, healthcare delivered by videoconferencing was effective in assessing patients’ health conditions and improving patients’ health conditions in 98% of the included studies.[18] This review also found that telehealth consultations improved treatment compliance and accountability for some participants.[18] Additionally, telehealth services have been found to improve access to care, and communication and engagement with clinicians from patients’ and informal carers’ perspectives.[16] However, telehealth services were not an effective means of psychosocial support in some studies and poor audio-visual quality limited patients’ satisfaction with healthcare.[16]

Patients and communities from racial/ethnic minorities are at risk of poorer health outcomes than the majority population because of structural inequities, including lack of access to health information in languages other than English, underutilization of interpreter services, lack of culturally appropriate services, and racism and discrimination.[19–23] The use of telehealth consultations may further complicate healthcare access for patients from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds due to their limited health and digital literacy, and their challenges in navigating mainstream healthcare systems.[23 ,24] These access barriers are potentially heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic.[7]

Despite previous reviews of telehealth effectiveness for different patient populations such as older populations and rural and remote communities, no reviews have been undertaken of studies assessing telehealth consultations specifically for patients and communities from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds. An evidence synthesis focused on patients and communities from racial/ethnic minority groups would generate an evidence base for the tailoring of telehealth consultations to their diverse needs.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to explore the health outcomes, implementation facilitators and barriers, and satisfaction with care, in relation to telehealth consultations for racial/ethnic minority populations in order to make recommendations for practice and future research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Information sources and search strategy

The protocol for this systematic review was registered in the international register of systematic reviews PROSPERO (CRD 42020221017) and was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.[25] Studies were identified from a search of the following 5 electronic databases: Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL via EbscoHOST and Scopus platforms. The search was limited to studies published in English between 1 January 2005 and 9 October 2020. Additionally, a search for existing systematic reviews on the same topic was conducted in: all EBM reviews via Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute, and PROSPERO. Reference lists of included studies were hand-searched for relevant studies.

A list of terms was formulated for the concepts: “telehealth” and “racial or ethnic minority”. These terms were mapped to subject headings (e.g., Medical Subject Headings or equivalent) and keywords. Boolean operators were used to group subject headings and keywords to create a search strategy (Supplementary file X).

Eligibility Criteria

To be included in the review the study had to meet the following inclusion criteria:

  1. Sample population included patients from racial/ethnic minorities, their carers or healthcare staff who provided care to racial/ethnic minorities, with study findings disaggregated by racial/ethnic minority groups.

  2. For this review, we describe the intervention as ‘telehealth consultation’. Telehealth consultations occurred instead of a face-to-face consultation to provide a health service such as a clinical assessment or diagnosis and/or management of a health condition (physical or mental). Support services provided as standard practice (e.g., phone interpreting, telemonitoring without direct interaction with a healthcare provider) were excluded. Studies that primarily focussed on delivery of health promotion programs or health-related education via telehealth were also excluded.

  3. Included telehealth consultations in healthcare settings (e.g., hospitals, primary care clinics)

  4. Reported individual health outcomes (e.g., physical health, mental health). Individual level outcomes could be related to patients/health consumers and care-givers.

  5. Reported health service outcomes (e.g., readmission rates, barriers to implementation). Health service level outcomes may be related to access to care, service delivery, satisfaction with care and cost-effectiveness

  6. Used quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods study designs

  7. Published in a peer-reviewed journal

Reviews of telehealth consultations and healthcare for Indigenous peoples have been published.[26–30] We therefore did not include Indigenous peoples in the current review. Publications were excluded if they were opinion pieces, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, conference abstracts or proceedings or duplicate publications using the same sample and reporting the same outcomes.

Data screening and extraction

Search results were exported from the electronic databases into the systematic review management platform Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, 2021). Screening was undertaken in two phases. Following the removal of duplicates, studies were screened independently in duplicate by two reviewers on title and abstract. Conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer. In the second screening phase, full text articles were screened independently in duplicate by two reviewers and conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer.

Data extraction was performed by two reviewers using Covidence, with differences resolved by a third reviewer. Extracted data comprised the characteristics of each study: country of study, health setting, study aim, study design, sample size and participants’ characteristics (e.g., gender, age, race/ethnicity/cultural background), health conditions, and the details of the telehealth intervention. Data were also extracted pertaining to study findings: health outcomes (e.g., blood pressure, depression symptoms) and health access and delivery outcomes (e.g., satisfaction with care, implementation barriers and facilitators).

Methodological quality assessment of studies

Risk of bias and critical appraisal were conducted independently in duplicate by two reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tools.[31] The JBI Critical Appraisal Tools assess the methodological quality of studies of various design and the extent to which the risk of bias is addressed by authors. For each criterion assessed as ‘met’ on the appropriate tool, a score of ‘1’ was applied. Where criteria were assessed as ‘not met’ or if it was ‘unclear’ to the reviewer, a score of ‘0’ was applied. The scores were then calculated for each study and converted to a final quality rating of ‘low’, ‘moderate’ or ‘high’. The following JBI Critical Appraisal Tools and scoring parameters were implemented in this review: Checklist for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) (score out of 10; Low 0-3, Moderate 4-7, High 8-10); the Checklist for quasi-experimental studies (score out of 9; Low 0-3, Moderate 4-6, High 7-9); Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies (score out of 8; Low 0-3, Moderate 4-6, High 7-8); the Checklist for Qualitative Research (score out of 10; Low 0-3, Moderate 4-7, High 8-10); the Checklist for Cohort Studies (score out of 11; Low 0-4, Moderate 5-8, High 9-11); and, the Checklist for Case Series Studies (score out of 10; Low 0-3, Moderate 4-7, High 8-10). (See Supplementary file for critical appraisal criteria for each study design.)

For mixed methods studies, we used two questions screening questions and five questions from the ‘mixed methods studies’ section of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool version 2018 (MMAT),[32] (score out of 7; Low 0-2, Moderate 3-5, High 6-7) which are related to the rationale for using a mixed methods study design and level of interpretation and integration of the qualitative and quantitative components of the study.[32]

Synthesis of studies

Extracted data were exported from Covidence into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for analysis. A convergent integrated approach to data synthesis was taken in accordance with the JBI methodology for mixed methods systematic reviews.[31] Due to the heterogeneity of study methodology, design, sample characteristics, and outcome measures, there was no opportunity to conduct a meta-analysis of quantitative studies nor a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. A narrative synthesis was thus conducted where both qualitative and quantitative data were tabulated together and categorized according to the four outcomes of interest: health outcomes, health access, implementation barriers and facilitators to telehealth consultations, and satisfaction with care. A comparison between studies reporting on the same outcome was performed, with similar and divergent findings reported. Study characteristics such as country and setting, study methodology and design, sample sizes and participant characteristics, were examined by calculating frequencies and proportions.

RESULTS

Study selection

The combined searches from the four databases identified 3,314 unique articles which were screened using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 28 articles met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review (Figure 1).

Figure 1:
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1:

Flow diagram of study selection. Adapted from PRISMA flow-chart [25]

Study characteristics

Studies were published between 2005 and 2019 and comprised 4,301 patients and 12 caregivers from racial/ethnic minorities, and 34 healthcare practitioners. The majority of studies (n=23, 82.1%) examined groups located in the United States and utilized quantitative study designs (n=19, 67.9%). The most common health conditions examined were mental health conditions (n=17, 60.7%), of which nine focused on depression. The most frequent study setting was community health centers (n=8, 28.6%), followed by primary health clinics (n=5, 17.9%), psychiatric or trauma treatment centers (n=4, 14.3%), the community (n=3, 10.7%) and HIV clinics (n=2, 7.1%). The racial/ethnic minority populations included in the studies were predominantly Latino/a or Hispanic (n=13, 46.4%) and African American (n=7, 25.0%). Seven studies included Asian participants from Korean and Chinese communities, three studies included participants from refugee and immigrant backgrounds and one study described their minority population as ‘non-white ethnic group’. Characteristics of included studies are presented in Table 1. (Supplementary file Table 1 presents detailed information related to study characteristics.)

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1: Summary of included telehealth articles (n=28)

Quality assessment

The quality of the included studies was mixed (see Supplementary file). All 11 RCTs reported random sampling from patients presenting for clinical care. There was variation in the reporting of allocation concealment and differences in baseline characteristics between groups in some RCTs, however most reported completion of follow-up assessments and an intent to treat approach to data analysis. As all RCT studies investigated a telehealth consultation between a practitioner and a patient, blinding of participant and practitioner was not possible. Accordingly, no RCT studies reported blinding of participants to intervention group or blinding of practitioners delivering the intervention to group allocation. The number of quality indicators for RCT studies reported ranged from 3/10 to 7/10. Each of the two quasi-experimental studies employed a pre/post design and there were mixed results regarding study quality. The quality of reporting for the one study utilizing a cohort design and for the one study using a case series design was high. Overall, the quality of reporting for studies using cross-sectional, mixed methods and qualitative designs was low to medium.

Telehealth consultations

Data pertaining to telehealth consultations are presented in Table 2. Across the included studies, telehealth consultations were primarily mental health consultations (n=17, 61%) such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or psychiatry (telepsychiatry). Physical health consultations were related to chronic disease management (n=9, 32.1%) and clinical monitoring (n=2, 7.1%). Physical health diseases that were managed by telehealth consultations included diabetes (n=2, 7%), hypertension (n=3, 11%) and infectious diseases (n=2, 7%). Telehealth consultations were used to monitor patients’ clinical status in two studies. One study used a telephone triage system and computer-supported decision-making software.[33] The other study monitored patient’s vital signs and other health related information ‘remotely’; and this was then used to inform virtual ‘wellness’ visits by a nurse practitioner who discussed the patient’s medications and recent health data.[34]

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2. Characteristics of included studies by study design

The telehealth consultations and interventions were delivered by a range of healthcare professionals including: nurses (n=10, 35.7%),[33–42] physicians (n=13, 46.4%)[33 ,37 ,39 ,40 ,42–51] including psychiatrists, primary care physicians and specialists, allied health professionals (n=9, 32.0%)[46 ,52–59] such as social workers, counsellors and psychologists, and paraprofessional outreach workers in one study.[39] In eighteen studies (64%), the healthcare professionals delivering the telehealth intervention were bilingual. The mode used to deliver the telemedicine intervention was video conferencing in 16 studies (57.1%) and telephone in 11 studies (39.3%); one study used both internet video and telephone communication.[39]

Health outcomes

In total, 14 studies measured health outcomes with evidence of effectiveness of telemedicine on measures of mental health, cardiovascular health and diabetes related outcomes. Three RCTs focused on health outcomes related to treatment of depression. These three studies assessed the effect of a telehealth CBT intervention on depression severity compared with face-to-face CBT[55 ,60] or compared with anti-depressant therapy.[53] Among Latino patients, worry symptoms were reduced[60] and depression symptoms were improved[55] following the use of culturally adapted telephone-based CBT compared to face-to-face CBT. In the study by Dwight-Johnson[53], Latino patients receiving culturally adapted telephone-based CBT showed greater improvement in depression symptoms over 6 months compared to patients who received usual care with anti-depressant medications.

The effects of telepsychiatry consultations or remote management on improving depression outcomes were reported in three RCTs.[43 ,46 ,49>] In a study of Hispanic patients with depression, monthly telepsychiatry consultations and usual care were equally effective in reducing depression scores after 6 months.[43] In another pilot RCT [46], telephone-based depression care management plus usual care was compared with the usual care only group. The findings of this study showed a trend for lower levels of depression in the intervention group over time compared with the control group.[46] In another study, the effectiveness of culturally sensitive telepsychiatry treatment and care management was compared to usual care for Chinese Americans with depression.[49] This study found greater improvement in depressive symptoms following telepsychiatry compared with usual care.[49] In a single group pre-test post-test design with Korean immigrants, weekly sessions of telepsychiatry for four weeks significantly reduced depression scores at immediate follow-up and at three-months follow-up.[56] In a pilot study using a pre-post two group design focusing on African American caregivers of older adults with dementia, telephone-based and face-to-face CBT interventions were equally effective in reducing depression scores.[54]

Three studies assessed the effects of telemedicine on cardiovascular and diabetes health outcomes.[37–39] In one RCT study of patients with hypertension from Korea, bi-weekly and monthly hypertension-related telephone counselling, and 12-month home monitoring of BP were effective in improving long-term BP outcomes[38]. The second study employing a RCT design assessed the effectiveness of a telemedicine intervention emphasizing medication management and home BP monitoring with African American patients living with hypertension [37]. Jackson et al.[37] found significant improvement in mean systolic blood pressure at 12-months and at 18-months following the intervention compared with usual care. A study by Mayes [39] assessed the impact of telemedicine on blood glucose regulation among Hispanic patients living with type 2 diabetes and found that telemedicine monitoring significantly improved participants’ blood glucose regulation.

Barriers and facilitators

Three studies identified technology as a barrier to the implementation of telehealth, which was not unique to a health condition or study design. A mixed method study involving African Americans and Hispanics with mental health conditions identified initial issues with logging into the videoconferencing software and technical problems with the equipment.[59] A cross sectional study involving refugees with infectious diseases experienced technical difficulties in a quarter of the first telehealth consultations, although this significantly improved with experience.[42] A qualitative study involving African Americans and Hispanics with heart failure found that there were initial concerns with using the equipment, but these dissipated with use.[41] This study also reported issues with internet connection, using the equipment, patients managing the intervention alone at home, and concerns with patient literacy. The combined use of audio and text in the telemonitoring program assisted patients’ understanding.[41]

Six studies identified facilitators to telehealth implementation. The facilitators were not unique to a health condition or race/ethnic background. Telehealth consultations using video conferencing supported health professionals to provide education to patients with mental health conditions by sharing PowerPoint presentations and other written material.[58 ,59] Telehealth permitted caregiver engagement and could be delivered in a language of the patient and caregiver’s preference.[58 ,59] Patients from ethnic minorities reported ease of access to medical help through the GP telephone triage system.[33] Telehealth allowed patients with HIV quick access to their providers and increased their likelihood of attending appointments.[57] Patients with diabetes and hypertension gave favorable ratings to the accessibility of telehealth.[34] Strategies to assist with telehealth consultations included: face-to-face meetings prior to establishing telehealth to build relationships[59] and use of a

Satisfaction with telehealth consultations

Overall, 16 studies (57.1%) explored satisfaction with telehealth consultations. Of these, nine were quantitative studies[33 ,40 ,43 ,45 ,50 ,53 ,55 ,56 ,60], five studies were mixed methods [34 ,46 ,48 ,51 ,59] and two studies used qualitative methods.[52 ,57] Results across the sixteen studies were mixed, with the majority of studies (n=11, 68.8%) reporting high levels of satisfaction with telehealth among patients, carers and health professionals.[34 ,40 ,43 ,45 ,50–53 ,56 ,57 ,59] Reasons for satisfaction with telehealth consultations included increased efficiency and convenience, enhanced privacy and reduced need for travel compared to in person face-to-face consultations. Some studies found no discernible differences in levels of satisfaction between telehealth groups and comparison groups (i.e. usual care or face-to-face interventions)[46 ,55 ,60] and participants in one study gave mixed feedback about telepsychiatry.[48] In a study examining telephone triage, patients from ethnic minorities reported higher satisfaction in the GP triage arm compared to usual care but lower satisfaction compared with white patients overall.[33]

DISCUSSION

This systematic review examined the existing empirical literature on telehealth consultations related to racial/ethnic minorities. Findings from this review indicate that telehealth consultations for mental health and some physical health conditions between health practitioners and patients from racial/ethnic minorities offer promise across a range of outcomes and healthcare settings and can result in high levels of patient satisfaction. However, it is yet to be determined whether this translates to other healthcare settings, different health conditions and other racial/ethnic minority populations (particularly in countries outside the United States).

Despite the overall positive impact of telehealth consultations for patients from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds, some barriers and challenges were identified by the studies. Information technology required to implement telehealth consultations may be problematic for some patients from racial/ethnic minorities because of the cost of equipment, limited understanding of the use of equipment, and limited health literacy. This concurs with findings from previous reviews of telehealth consultations.[15 ,16 ,18] Additionally, there may be unique and unanticipated challenges to telehealth consultation delivery for some ethnic communities. Some racial and ethnic communities may experience anxiety regarding telecommunications including telehealth because of their perceived risk of fraudulent use of telecommunication or because of their fear of contact from immigration authorities.[46] Any barriers and challenges to use of telehealth consultations are likely to be further exacerbated by factors related to English language proficiency, cultural factors and lack of familiarity with mainstream health systems. This includes awareness of changes in government subsidies related to medical care and advice delivered via telehealth.[61]

Other literature notes that limited English proficiency can be a significant barrier to health service access and utilization for racial/ethnic minorities, including via telehealth consultations. A recent survey by Rodriguez et al.[62] found that patients with limited English proficiency had lower rates of telehealth consultation use compared with proficient English speakers. In English speaking countries, patients with limited English language proficiency may experience substantial difficulties with the use of telehealth and information technology equipment suggesting that these patients are at greater risk of receiving poorer quality healthcare when engaging in telehealth.

Furthermore, providing culturally appropriate healthcare is also important for racial/ethnic minorities.[63] In our review, some of the studies included culturally adapted materials in their telehealth consultations and used bilingual staff or interpreters and is likely to have contributed to the overall positive findings across the included studies. The cultural appropriateness and acceptability of telehealth consultations and development of cultural frameworks to guide telehealth use should be considered more broadly, particularly if services are being delivered transnationally.[64 ,65]

Overcoming barriers and challenges to telehealth should address the need for digital literacy and linguistically appropriate online information. Although the use of bilingual staff or interpreters to deliver a telehealth consultation may mitigate some of the challenges experienced by racial/ethnic minorities when using telehealth, patients may still face significant barriers due to poor digital literacy skills. Digital literacy refers to a person’s ability to use digital tools (e.g., health applications, patient portals, appointment booking) to access, understand and analyse information and communicate with others.[66 ,67] Previous studies suggest low digital literacy to be a contributing factor to racial/ethnic disparities among telehealth users.[68 ,69]

Limitations of the current evidence-base and areas for further research

This review identified key limitations of existing research in telehealth for racial/ethnic minorities. Given the increasing and more widespread adoption of telehealth consultations across the health system due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to understand its impact for patients from racial/ethnic minority groups to ensure equity of healthcare access and utilization. A recent study of telemedicine use during COVID-19 has already identified disparities in telemedicine access for African American patients compared to white patients.[6]

Further research is required in other areas such as acute and chronic disease management and in other care settings for racial/ethnic minorities such as cancer care, kidney disease, emergency department admissions, critical care, pediatrics and obstetrics/midwifery. Healthcare services and institutions should monitor use of telehealth consultations across patient demographics, including language and racial/ethnic background, to measure the impact on health equity. Although our search strategy identified studies conducted in non-English speaking countries, most studies were based in the United States of America. Additional studies are required in other countries with underserved populations who may have less access to information technologies.

Included studies were also limited by a lack of methodological rigor across most study designs, resulting in a significant gap in the current evidence base. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine whether, and to what extent, telehealth consultations affect health-related outcomes over time for racial/ethnic minorities. In particular, the effects of telehealth on early identification of disease and on the long-term management of chronic health conditions are required to maximize long-term health outcomes for racial/ethnic minorities.

Patients from marginalized racial/ethnic minority groups such as refugees were only specifically studied in three of the 28 studies.[42 ,45 ,51] Issues related to caregiver support and the optimal mode of telehealth consultation delivery (i.e., telephone vs videoconferencing) should also be explored in future research.

Limitations of the review

Our review has several limitations. Only articles published in English were included therefore there is risk of publication bias. Additionally, the search period of 1 January 2005 to 9 October 2020, may have omitted earlier relevant studies. However, information technology enabling telehealth consultation has evolved considerably since the early 21st century. We anticipate that studies published prior to 2005 would have limited relevance.

CONCLUSION

This review has shown telehealth consultations to be mostly positive and beneficial to patients from racial/ethnic minority groups in terms of health outcomes, satisfaction with healthcare and accessibility of health services. Telehealth consultations delivered to patients in their preferred language or by bilingual health providers contributed to positive outcomes. Challenges to implementation of telehealth consultations across racial/ethnic minority populations were also identified and should be considered in the development and implementation of guidelines, policies and practices in relation to the use of telehealth consultations across healthcare. Further research is needed to understand the long-term impacts of telehealth use to ensure health disparities are not worsened.

Data Availability

Data is available upon request to authors

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST STATEMENT

None of the authors have conflicts of interests to declare.

FUNDING

This work did not receive any funding.

SUPPLEMENTARY FILE

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies
View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2 Bias appraisal randomised controlled trial design studies (n=11) (Critical Appraisal Checklist for RCTs (JBI))
View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3 Quality appraisal quasi-experimental design studies (n=2) (Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies, JBI)
View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 4 Quality appraisal cohort design studies (n=1) (Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies, JBI)
View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 5 Quality appraisal cross-sectional design studies (n=4) (Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cross-Sectional Studies, JBI)
View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 6 Quality appraisal case series (n=1) (Critical Appraisal Checklist for case series (JBI))
View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 7 Quality appraisal mixed methods studies (n=6) (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, McGill University)
View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 8 Quality appraisal qualitative design studies (n=3) (Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Studies, JBI)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

None.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Ohannessian R, Duong TA, Odone A. Global telemedicine implementation and integration within health systems to fight the COVID-19 pandemic: a call to action. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance 2020;6(2):e18810.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.
    El-Shakankery KH, Kefas J, Crusz SM. Caring for our cancer patients in the wake of COVID-19. Br J Cancer 2020;123(1):3–4.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    Smith AC, Thomas E, Snoswell CL, et al. Telehealth for global emergencies: Implications for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). J Telemed Telecare 2020;26(5):309–13 doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X20916567
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Wong MYZ, Gunasekeran DV, Nusinovici S, et al. Telehealth demand trends during the COVID-19 pandemic in the top 50 most affected countries: Infodemiological evaluation. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance 2021;7(2):e24445 doi: 10.2196/24445
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    Nouri S, Khoong EC, Lyles CR, Karliner L. Addressing equity in telemedicine for chronic disease management during the Covid-19 pandemic. NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery 2020: May 4.
  6. 6.↵
    Chunara R, Zhao Y, Chen J, et al. Telemedicine and healthcare disparities: a cohort study in a large healthcare system in New York City during COVID-19. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021;28(1):33–41 doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa217.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    World Health Organization. Global strategy on digital health 2020-2025. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2020.
  8. 8.
    Polinski JM, Barker T, Gagliano N, et al. Patients’ satisfaction with and preference for telehealth visits. J Gen Intern Med 2016;31(3):269–75 doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3489-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.
    Donelan K, Barreto EA, Sossong S, et al. Patient and clinician experiences with telehealth for patient follow-up care. Am J Manag Care 2019;25(1):40–44.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Cox A, Lucas G, Marcu A, et al. Cancer survivors’ experience with telehealth: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. JMIR 2017;19(1):e11 doi: 10.2196/jmir.6575
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    Thota R, Gill DM, Brant JL, et al. Telehealth is a sustainable population health strategy to lower costs and increase quality of health care in rural Utah. JCO Oncology Practice 2020;16(7):e557–e62 doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00764
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.
    Zilliacus E, Meiser B, Lobb E, et al. The virtual consultation: practitioners’ experiences of genetic counseling by videoconferencing in Australia. Telemed J E Health 2010;16(3):350–57.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.
    Chakrabarti S. Usefulness of telepsychiatry: A critical evaluation of videoconferencing-based approaches. World J Psychiatry 2015;5(3):286–304
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Sabesan S, Kelly J, Evans R, Larkins S. A tele-oncology model replacing face-to-face specialist cancer care: perspectives of patients in North Queensland. J Telemed Telecare 2014;20(4):207–11
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Ross J, Stevenson F, Lau R, Murray E. Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update). Implementation Science 2016;11(1):1–12.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    Orlando JF, Beard M, Kumar S. Systematic review of patient and caregivers’ satisfaction with telehealth videoconferencing as a mode of service delivery in managing patients’ health. PloS one 2019;14(8):e0221848.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Kruse CS, Krowski N, Rodriguez B, Tran L, et al. Telehealth and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and narrative analysis. BMJ Open 2017;7(8):e016242.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    Almathami HKY, Win KT, Vlahu-Gjorgievska E. Barriers and facilitators that influence telemedicine-based, real-time, online consultation at patients’ homes: systematic literature review. JMIR 2020;22(2):e16407
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    Suphanchaimat R, Kantamaturapoj K, Putthasri W, et al. Challenges in the provision of healthcare services for migrants: a systematic review through providers’ lens. BMC Health Serv Res 2015;15(1):1–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.
    Bastos JL, Harnois CE, Paradies Y. Health care barriers, racism, and intersectionality in Australia. Soc Sci Med 2018;199:209–18
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.
    Greenwood N, Habibi R, Smith R, et al. Barriers to access and minority ethnic carers’ satisfaction with social care services in the community: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative literature. Health Soc Care Community 2015;23(1):64–78
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.
    Pangas J, Ogunsiji O, Elmir R, et al. Refugee women’s experiences negotiating motherhood and maternity care in a new country: a meta-ethnographic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2019;90:31–45
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Kerrigan V, McGrath SY, Majoni SW, et al. From “stuck” to satisfied: Aboriginal people’s experience of culturally safe care with interpreters in a Northern Territory hospital. BMC Health Serv Res 2021;21(1):1–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    Ortega G, Rodriguez JA, Maurer LR, et al. Telemedicine, COVID-19, and disparities: policy implications. Health Policy Technol 2020;9(3):368–71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    Fraser S, Mackean T, Grant J, et al. Use of telehealth for health care of Indigenous peoples with chronic conditions: a systematic review. Rural Remote Health 2017;17:4205
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.
    Kruse CS, Bouffard S, Dougherty M, et al. Telemedicine use in rural Native American communities in the era of the ACA: a systematic literature review. Journal of Medical Systems 2016;40(6):145
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.
    Dawson AZ, Walker RJ, Campbell JA, et al. Telehealth and indigenous populations around the world: a systematic review on current modalities for physical and mental health. M-health 2020;6:30
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.
    Caffery LJ, Bradford NK, Wickramasinghe SI, et al. Outcomes of using telehealth for the provision of healthcare to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: a systematic review. Aust N Z J Public Health 2017;41(1):48–53
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    Wickramasinghe SI, Caffery LJ, Bradford NK, et al. Enablers and barriers in providing telediabetes services for Indigenous communities: A systematic review. J Telemed Telecare 2016;22(8):465–71
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Aromataris E, Munn Z. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: JBI, 2020.
  32. 32.↵
    Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information 2018;34(4):285–91
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. 33.↵
    Warren FC, Calitri R, Fletcher E, et al. Exploring demographic and lifestyle associations with patient experience following telephone triage by a primary care doctor or nurse: secondary analyses from a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Qual Saf 2015;24(9):572 doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-003937
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    Bagchi AD, Melamed B, Yeniyurt S, et al. Telemedicine delivery for urban seniors with low computer literacy: A pilot study. Online J Nurs Inform 2018;22(2)
  35. 35.
    Berg GD, Wadhwa S. Diabetes disease management results in Hispanic Medicaid patients. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2009;20(2):432–43.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.
    Han H-R, Kim J, Kim KB, et al. Implementation and success of nurse telephone counseling in linguistically isolated Korean American patients with high blood pressure. Patient Educ Couns 2010;80(1):130–34
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    Jackson GL, Oddone EZ, Olsen MK, et al. Racial differences in the effect of a telephone-delivered hypertension disease management program. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27(12):1682–89
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Kim MT, Han HR, Hedlin H, et al. Teletransmitted monitoring of blood pressure and bilingual nurse counseling–sustained improvements in blood pressure control during 12 months in hypertensive Korean Americans. J Clin Hypertens 2011;13(8):605–12
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    Mayes P, Silvers A, Prendergast J. Paraprofessional outreach workers backed by an expert medical team. Telemed J E Health 2010;16(3):358–63
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Park HY, KIm JY, Koo HY, et al. Evaluation of a telehealth counseling program for expatriates. Telemed J E Health 2019;25(8):693–700
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    Pekmezaris R, Schwartz RM, Taylor TN, et al. A qualitative analysis to optimize a telemonitoring intervention for heart failure patients from disparity communities. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2016;16:75–75 doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0300-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    Schulz TR, Richards M, Gasko H, Lohrey J, et al. Telehealth: experience of the first 120 consultations delivered from a new Refugee Telehealth clinic. Internal Medicine Journal 2014;44(10):981–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    Chong J, Moreno F. Feasibility and acceptability of clinic-based telepsychiatry for low-income Hispanic primary care patients. Telemed J E Health 2012;18(4):297–304
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.
    Moreno FA, Chong J, Dumbauld J, et al. Use of standard Webcam and Internet equipment for telepsychiatry treatment of depression among underserved Hispanics. Psychiat Serv 2012;63(12):1213–17
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    Mucic D. Transcultural telepsychiatry and its impact on patient satisfaction. J Telemed Telecare 2010;16(5):237–42 doi: 10.1258/jtt.2009.090811
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    Uebelacker LA, Marootian BA, Tigue P, et al. Telephone depression care management for latino medicaid health plan members: A pilot randomized controlled trial. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 2011;199(9):678–83
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.
    Vahia IV, Ng B, Camacho A, et al. Telepsychiatry for neurocognitive testing in older rural Latino adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2015;23(7):666–70 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2014.08.006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    Ye J, Shim R, Lukaszewski T, et al. Telepsychiatry services for Korean immigrants. Telemed J E Health 2012;10:797–802
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    Yeung A, Martinson M, Baer L, et al. The effectiveness of telepsychiatry-based culturally sensitive collaborative treatment for depressed Chinese American immigrants: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Psychiatry 2016;77(8):e996–e1002
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    Yeung A, Johnson DP, Trinh N-H, et al. Feasibility and effectiveness of telepsychiatry services for Chinese immigrants in a nursing home. Telemed J E Health 2009;15(4):336–41
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. 51.↵
    Mucic D. Telepsychiatry pilot-project in Denmark. World Cult Psychiatry Res Rev 2007;2:3–9
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    Aisenberg E, Dwight-Johnson M, O’Brien M, et al. Building a community-academic partnership: Implementing a community-based trial of telephone cognitive behavioral therapy for rural Latinos. Depress Res Treat 2012:257858
  53. 53.↵
    Dwight-Johnson M, Aisenberg E, Golinelli D, et al. Telephone-based cognitive-behavioral therapy for Latino patients living in rural areas: a randomized pilot study. Psychiat Serv 2011;62(8):936–42
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    Glueckauf RL, Davis WS, Willis F, et al. Telephone-based, cognitive-behavioral therapy for African American dementia caregivers with depression: Initial findings. Rehabil Psychol 2012;57(2):124–39
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    Himelhoch S, Medoff D, Maxfield J, et al. Telephone based cognitive behavioral therapy targeting major depression among urban dwelling, low income people living with HIV/AIDS: results of a randomized controlled trial. AIDS Behav 2013;17(8):2756–64
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Jang Y, Chiriboga DA, Molinari V, et al. Telecounseling for the linguistically isolated: A pilot study with older Korean immigrants. Gerontologist 2014;54(2):290–96 doi: 10.1093/geront/gns196
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    Saberi P, Yuan P, John M, et al. A pilot study to engage and counsel HIV-positive African American youth via telehealth technology. AIDS Patient Care STDs 2013;27(9):529–32
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    Stewart RW, Orengo-Aguayo RE, Gilmore AK, de Arellano M. Addressing barriers to care among Hispanic youth: Telehealth delivery of trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. Behav Ther 2017;40(3):112–18
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    Stewart RW, Orengo-Aguayo RE, Cohen JA, et al. A pilot study of trauma-focused cognitive–behavioral therapy delivered via telehealth technology. Child Maltreat 2017;22(4):324–33 doi: 10.1177/1077559517725403
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. 60.↵
    Alcántara C, Li X, Wang Y, et al. Treatment moderators and effectiveness of Engagement and Counseling for Latinos intervention on worry reduction in a low-income primary care sample. J Consult Clin Psychol 2016;84(11):1016–22
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    O’Mara B, Monani D, Carey G. Telehealth, COVID-19 and refugees and migrants in Australia: policy and related barriers and opportunities for more inclusive health and technology systems. Int J Health Policy Manag 2021:1–5
  62. 62.↵
    Rodriquez J, Saadi A, Schwamm L, et al. Disparities in telehealth use among California patients with limited English proficiency. Health Aff 2021;40(3):487–95 doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00823
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. 63.↵
    Leung AYM, Bo A, Hsiao H-Y, et al. Health literacy issues in the care of Chinese American immigrants with diabetes: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2014;4(11):e005294 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005294
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. 64.↵
    Sivaraman M, Fahmie TA. A systematic review of cultural adaptations in the global application of ABA-based telehealth services. J Appl Behav Anal 2020;53(4):1838–55 doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.763|.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    Hilty DM, Crawford A, Teshima J, et al. Mobile health and cultural competencies as a foundation for telehealth care: Scoping review. J Technol Behav Sci 2021;6(2):197–230 doi: 10.1007/s41347-020-00180-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. 66.↵
    Martin A, Grudziecki J. DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences 2006;5(4):249–67
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  67. 67.↵
    Reddy P, Sharma B, Chaudhary K. Digital literacy: A review of literature. Int J Technoethics 2020;11(2):65–94
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    Sachs JW, Graven P, Gold JA, Kassakian SZ. Disparities in telephone and video telehealth engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMIA Open 2021;4(3):ooab056
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.↵
    Goel MS, Brown TL, Williams A, et al. Disparities in enrollment and use of an electronic patient portal. J Gen Intern Med 2011;26(10):1112–16
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted August 27, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Using telehealth consultations for healthcare provision to patients from racial/ethnic minorities: A systematic review
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Using telehealth consultations for healthcare provision to patients from racial/ethnic minorities: A systematic review
Mandy Truong, Ladan Yeganeh, Olivia Cook, Kimberley Crawford, Pauline Wong, Jacqueline Allen
medRxiv 2021.08.25.21262592; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.25.21262592
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Using telehealth consultations for healthcare provision to patients from racial/ethnic minorities: A systematic review
Mandy Truong, Ladan Yeganeh, Olivia Cook, Kimberley Crawford, Pauline Wong, Jacqueline Allen
medRxiv 2021.08.25.21262592; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.25.21262592

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Informatics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (227)
  • Allergy and Immunology (501)
  • Anesthesia (110)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1233)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (206)
  • Dermatology (147)
  • Emergency Medicine (282)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (529)
  • Epidemiology (10012)
  • Forensic Medicine (5)
  • Gastroenterology (498)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2448)
  • Geriatric Medicine (236)
  • Health Economics (479)
  • Health Informatics (1636)
  • Health Policy (751)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (635)
  • Hematology (248)
  • HIV/AIDS (532)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (11860)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (625)
  • Medical Education (252)
  • Medical Ethics (74)
  • Nephrology (268)
  • Neurology (2277)
  • Nursing (139)
  • Nutrition (350)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (452)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (534)
  • Oncology (1245)
  • Ophthalmology (375)
  • Orthopedics (133)
  • Otolaryngology (226)
  • Pain Medicine (155)
  • Palliative Medicine (50)
  • Pathology (324)
  • Pediatrics (729)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (311)
  • Primary Care Research (282)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2280)
  • Public and Global Health (4828)
  • Radiology and Imaging (834)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (490)
  • Respiratory Medicine (650)
  • Rheumatology (283)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (237)
  • Sports Medicine (226)
  • Surgery (266)
  • Toxicology (44)
  • Transplantation (125)
  • Urology (99)