Faculty Bibliography

The COVID-19 pandemic has boosted digital health utilization, raising concerns about increased physicians' after-hours clinical work ("work-outside-work"). The surge in patients' digital messages and additional time spent on work-outside-work by telemedicine providers underscores the need to evaluate the connection between digital health utilization and physicians' after-hours commitments. We examined the impact on physicians' workload from two types of digital demands - patients' messages requesting medical advice (PMARs) sent to physicians' inbox (inbasket), and telemedicine. Our study included 1716 ambulatory-care physicians in New York City regularly practicing between November 2022 and March 2023. Regression analyses assessed primary and interaction effects of (PMARs) and telemedicine on work-outside-work. The study revealed a significant effect of PMARs on physicians' work-outside-work and that this relationship is moderated by physicians' specialties. Non-primary care physicians or specialists experienced a more pronounced effect than their primary care peers. Analysis of their telemedicine load revealed that primary care physicians received fewer PMARs and spent less time in work-outside-work with more telemedicine. Specialists faced increased PMARs and did more work-outside-work as telemedicine visits increased which could be due to the difference in patient panels. Reducing PMAR volumes and efficient inbasket management strategies needed to reduce physicians' work-outside-work. Policymakers need to be cognizant of potential disruptions in physicians carefully balanced workload caused by the digital health services.

BACKGROUND:Chatbots are being piloted to draft responses to patient questions, but patients' ability to distinguish between provider and chatbot responses and patients' trust in chatbots' functions are not well established. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) or a similar artificial intelligence-based chatbot for patient-provider communication. METHODS:A survey study was conducted in January 2023. Ten representative, nonadministrative patient-provider interactions were extracted from the electronic health record. Patients' questions were entered into ChatGPT with a request for the chatbot to respond using approximately the same word count as the human provider's response. In the survey, each patient question was followed by a provider- or ChatGPT-generated response. Participants were informed that 5 responses were provider generated and 5 were chatbot generated. Participants were asked-and incentivized financially-to correctly identify the response source. Participants were also asked about their trust in chatbots' functions in patient-provider communication, using a Likert scale from 1-5. RESULTS:A US-representative sample of 430 study participants aged 18 and older were recruited on Prolific, a crowdsourcing platform for academic studies. In all, 426 participants filled out the full survey. After removing participants who spent less than 3 minutes on the survey, 392 respondents remained. Overall, 53.3% (209/392) of respondents analyzed were women, and the average age was 47.1 (range 18-91) years. The correct classification of responses ranged between 49% (192/392) to 85.7% (336/392) for different questions. On average, chatbot responses were identified correctly in 65.5% (1284/1960) of the cases, and human provider responses were identified correctly in 65.1% (1276/1960) of the cases. On average, responses toward patients' trust in chatbots' functions were weakly positive (mean Likert score 3.4 out of 5), with lower trust as the health-related complexity of the task in the questions increased. CONCLUSIONS:ChatGPT responses to patient questions were weakly distinguishable from provider responses. Laypeople appear to trust the use of chatbots to answer lower-risk health questions. It is important to continue studying patient-chatbot interaction as chatbots move from administrative to more clinical roles in health care.

Increasingly, laws are being proposed and passed by governments around the world to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) systems implemented into the public and private sectors. Many of these regulations address the transparency of AI systems, and related citizen-aware issues like allowing individuals to have the right to an explanation about how an AI system makes a decision that impacts them. Yet, almost all AI governance documents to date have a significant drawback: they have focused on what to do (or what not to do) with respect to making AI systems transparent, but have left the brunt of the work to technologists to figure out how to build transparent systems. We fill this gap by proposing a stakeholder-first approach that assists technologists in designing transparent, regulatory-compliant systems. We also describe a real-world case study that illustrates how this approach can be used in practice.

Background: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) technologies can support patients living with chronic conditions through self-monitoring of physiological measures and enhance clinicians"™ diagnostic and treatment decisions. However, to date, large-scale pragmatic RPM implementation within health systems has been limited, and understanding of the impacts of RPM technologies on clinical workflows and care experience is lacking. Objective: In this study, we evaluate the early implementation of operational RPM initiatives for chronic disease management within the ambulatory network of an academic medical center in New York City, focusing on the experiences of "early adopter" clinicians and patients. Methods: Using a multimethod qualitative approach, we conducted (1) interviews with 13 clinicians across 9 specialties considered as early adopters and supporters of RPM and (2) speculative design sessions exploring the future of RPM in clinical care with 21 patients and patient representatives, to better understand experiences, preferences, and expectations of pragmatic RPM use for health care delivery. Results: We identified themes relevant to RPM implementation within the following areas: (1) data collection and practices, including impacts of taking real-world measures and issues of data sharing, security, and privacy; (2) proactive and preventive care, including proactive and preventive monitoring, and proactive interventions and support; and (3) health disparities and equity, including tailored and flexible care and implicit bias. We also identified evidence for mitigation and support to address challenges in each of these areas. Conclusions: This study highlights the unique contexts, perceptions, and challenges regarding the deployment of RPM in clinical practice, including its potential implications for clinical workflows and work experiences. Based on these findings, we offer implementation and design recommendations for health systems interested in deploying RPM-enabled health care.

BACKGROUND:The surge of telemedicine use during the early stages of the coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has been well documented. However, scarce evidence considers the utilization of telemedicine in the subsequent period. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to evaluate utilization patterns of video-based telemedicine visits for ambulatory care and urgent care provision over the course of recurring pandemic waves in one large health system in New York City, and what this means for healthcare delivery. METHODS:Retrospective electronic health record (EHR) data of patients between January 1st, 2020, and February 28th, 2022 were used to longitudinally track and analyze telemedicine and in-person visit volumes across ambulatory care specialties and urgent care, as well as compare them to a pre-pandemic baseline (June to November 2019). Diagnosis codes to differentiate COVID-19 suspected visits from non-COVID-19 visits, as well as evaluating COVID-19 based telemedicine utilization over time, were compared to the total number of COVID-19 positive cases in the same geographic region (city-level). The time-series data was segmented based on change-point analysis and variances in visit trends were compared between the segments. RESULTS:The emergence of COVID-19 prompted an early increase in the number of telemedicine visits across the urgent care and ambulatory care settings. This utilization continued throughout the pandemic at a much higher level than the pre-pandemic baseline for both COVID-19 and non-COVID suspected visits, despite fluctuation in COVID-19 cases throughout the pandemic and the resumption of in-person clinical services. Utilization of telemedicine-based urgent care services for COVID-19 suspected visits showed more variance in response to each pandemic wave, but telemedicine visits for ambulatory care have remained relatively steady after the initial crisis period. During the Omicron wave, the utilization of all visit types including in-person activities decreased. Patients between 25 and 34 years of age were the largest users of telemedicine-based urgent care. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine-based urgent care remained high despite the rapid scaling of services to meet increased demand. CONCLUSIONS:The trend of increased use of telemedicine as a means of healthcare delivery relative to the pre-COVID-19 baseline has been maintained throughout the later pandemic periods despite fluctuating COVID-19 cases and the resumption of in-person care delivery. Overall satisfaction with telemedicine-based care is also high. The trends in telemedicine utilization suggest that telemedicine-based healthcare delivery has become a mainstream and sustained supplement to in-person-based ambulatory care, particularly for younger patients, for both urgent and non-urgent care needs. These findings have implications for the healthcare delivery system, including practice leaders, insurers, and policymakers. Further investigation is needed to evaluate telemedicine adoption by key demographics, identify ongoing barriers to adoption, and explore the impacts of sustained use of telemedicine on healthcare outcomes and experience.

BACKGROUND:Telemedicine as a mode of health care work has grown dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic; the impact of this transition on clinicians' after-hours electronic health record (EHR)-based clinical and administrative work is unclear. OBJECTIVE:This study assesses the impact of the transition to telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic on physicians' EHR-based after-hours workload (ie, "work outside work") at a large academic medical center in New York City. METHODS:We conducted an EHR-based retrospective cohort study of ambulatory care physicians providing telemedicine services before the pandemic, during the acute pandemic, and after the acute pandemic, relating EHR-based after-hours work to telemedicine intensity (ie, percentage of care provided via telemedicine) and clinical load (ie, patient load per provider). RESULTS:A total of 2129 physicians were included in this study. During the acute pandemic, the volume of care provided via telemedicine significantly increased for all physicians, whereas patient volume decreased. When normalized by clinical load (ie, average appointments per day by average clinical days per week), telemedicine intensity was positively associated with work outside work across time periods. This association was strongest after the acute pandemic. CONCLUSIONS:Taking physicians' clinical load into account, physicians who devoted a higher proportion of their clinical time to telemedicine throughout various stages of the pandemic engaged in higher levels of EHR-based after-hours work compared to those who used telemedicine less intensively. This suggests that telemedicine, as currently delivered, may be less efficient than in-person-based care and may increase the after-hours work burden of physicians.

BACKGROUND:Sustained engagement is essential for the success of telerehabilitation programs. However, patients' lack of motivation and adherence could undermine these goals. To overcome this challenge, physical exercises have often been gamified. Building on the advantages of serious games, we propose a citizen science-based approach in which patients perform scientific tasks by using interactive interfaces and help advance scientific causes of their choice. This approach capitalizes on human intellect and benevolence while promoting learning. To further enhance engagement, we propose performing citizen science activities in immersive media, such as virtual reality (VR). OBJECTIVE:This study aims to present a novel methodology to facilitate the remote identification and classification of human movements for the automatic assessment of motor performance in telerehabilitation. The data-driven approach is presented in the context of a citizen science software dedicated to bimanual training in VR. Specifically, users interact with the interface and make contributions to an environmental citizen science project while moving both arms in concert. METHODS:In all, 9 healthy individuals interacted with the citizen science software by using a commercial VR gaming device. The software included a calibration phase to evaluate the users' range of motion along the 3 anatomical planes of motion and to adapt the sensitivity of the software's response to their movements. During calibration, the time series of the users' movements were recorded by the sensors embedded in the device. We performed principal component analysis to identify salient features of movements and then applied a bagged trees ensemble classifier to classify the movements. RESULTS:The classification achieved high performance, reaching 99.9% accuracy. Among the movements, elbow flexion was the most accurately classified movement (99.2%), and horizontal shoulder abduction to the right side of the body was the most misclassified movement (98.8%). CONCLUSIONS:Coordinated bimanual movements in VR can be classified with high accuracy. Our findings lay the foundation for the development of motion analysis algorithms in VR-mediated telerehabilitation.

With recurring waves of the Covid-19 pandemic, a dilemma facing public health leadership is whether to provide public advice that is medically optimal (e.g., most protective against infection if followed), but unlikely to be adhered to, or advice that is less protective but is more likely to be followed. To provide insight about this dilemma, we examined and quantified public perceptions about the tradeoff between (a) the stand-alone value of health behavior advice, and (b) the advice's adherence likelihood. In a series of studies about preference for public health leadership advice, we asked 1061 participants to choose between (5) strict advice that is medically optimal if adhered to but which is less likely to be broadly followed, and (2) relaxed advice, which is less medically effective but more likely to gain adherence-given varying infection expectancies. Participants' preference was consistent with risk aversion. Offering an informed choice alternative that shifts volition to advice recipients only strengthened risk aversion, but also demonstrated that informed choice was preferred as much or more than the risk-averse strict advice.