Comparisons of telemedicine and in-person visits: Utilization, oncology services and satisfaction among patients with breast cancer.

Abstract

517 Background: Since the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine utilization has expanded in oncology settings and helps facilitate access to oncology services for breast cancer patients (pts). However, it remains unclear what types of oncology services are received via telemedicine and whether receipts of these services differ between telemedicine and in-person visits. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study surveying breast cancer pts in the Chicago Multiethnic Epidemiologic Breast Cancer Cohort from July-September 2022. Telemedicine (i.e., audio call [AC], video conference [VC], and both) and in-person visits were measured as having had a telemedicine and in-person visit with a provider in the past 12 months. Types of oncology services included treatment consultation, management of side effects/symptoms, review of lab, screening or pathology results, cancer genetic counseling, and clinical trial follow-up. We assessed common side effects/symptoms discussed during telemedicine or in-person visits. Satisfaction was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. McNemar’s test was used to evaluate paired data on types of oncology services between telemedicine and in-person visits. Results: Of 1,160 pts (mean age 61.8 years, SD 12.0), 72.8% were White, followed by 19.7% Black, 4.5% Asian, and 3.0% Hispanic; 70.8% were privately insured and 23.0% on Medicaid/Medicare; 81.0% had stage I-III disease. Overall, 36.0% used telemedicine (of these, 65.0% VC, 22.7% AC, and 12.2% both) and 92.4% had in-person visits. Telemedicine users reported 93.9% and 95.5% of somewhat-to-extreme satisfaction with AC and VC, respectively, and 61.8% were likely or very likely to continue using telemedicine. In pts having both telemedicine and in-person visits, we observed differences between these visits in management of side effects/symptoms (15 vs. 54, p<.001), review of lab, screening or pathology results (26 vs. 90, p<.001), or trial follow-up (4 vs. 12, p=.046). However, there were no differences in treatment consultation (45 vs. 55, p=.317) or cancer genetic counseling (11 vs. 19, p=.144). Furthermore, BC pts who had in-person visits reported higher percentages of discussion of fatigue (50.3% vs. 41.1%), hot flashes (45.6% vs. 33.9%), lymphedema (26.0% vs. 19.6%), chemotherapy-induced neuropathy (24.9% vs. 19.5%), or nausea/vomiting (16.0% vs. 8.9%) than those used telemedicine; whereas a higher proportion of pts having discussed depressive symptoms via telemedicine than in-person visits (37.5% vs. 29.6%). Conclusions: In this multiethnic cohort of breast cancer pts, telemedicine use was prevalent and achieved high-level satisfaction. Our findings also suggest that both telemedicine and in-person visits are equally likely to include treatment consultation and genetic counseling, and telemedicine may be in greater need among breast cancer pts with mental health challenges.