Loading…

Young Black and White adults prefer in-person to telehealth for primary care visits and group health promotion programs

Abstract Telehealth utilization has increased since the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, reducing barriers to healthcare and, potentially, reducing participation in group health-promotion interventions. However, preferences for telehealth versus in-person formats have not been established. To exam...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Translational behavioral medicine 2024-11, Vol.14 (12), p.738-743
Main Authors: Gavrilova, Lyubov, Watson, Mellisa C, Eshera, Yasmine M, Ridgel, Angela L, Hughes, Joel W
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Telehealth utilization has increased since the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, reducing barriers to healthcare and, potentially, reducing participation in group health-promotion interventions. However, preferences for telehealth versus in-person formats have not been established. To examine preferences for telehealth and in-person format for primary care and group health-promotion interventions among Black and White women and men aged 20–39. We hypothesized that respondents would report a higher preference for telehealth than in-person appointments. This cross-sectional survey study recruited participants to answer questions about access to technology and preferences for telehealth and in-person formats of primary care and group health promotion. Respondents (n = 404) included similar proportions of White women (24.3%, 26.4 ± 4.3 years), Black women (25.0%, 29.0 ± 6.1 years), White men (25.9%, 32.8 ± 4.5 years), and Black men (24.8%, 30.6 ± 5.2 years). About 98.5% reported having a smartphone, and 80.4% had access to a computer with a camera. Preference ratings were higher for in-person visits, compared to telehealth visits, for both primary care (M = 3.86 ± 1.13 vs. M = 2.87 ± 1.18) and group health promotion (M = 3.72 ± 1.12 vs. M = 3.04 ± 1.20) F’s(1,400) > 59.0, P’s 
ISSN:1869-6716
1613-9860
DOI:10.1093/tbm/ibae064