Back

Variation in Telehealth Use in a National Home Test-to-Treat Program for Acute Respiratory Infections

Losos, W.; Wang, B.; Fisher, K.; O'Connor, L.; Soni, A.; Gerber, B.

2026-05-26 health informatics
10.64898/2026.05.24.26353984 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Home Test-to-Treat (HTTT) programs deliver timely antiviral treatment for acute respiratory infections, including COVID-19 and influenza, through at-home testing and telehealth. Because access is often measured by visit occurrence, variation in how and when care is delivered may be overlooked. We hypothesized that telehealth access follows distinct process-based patterns. Methods We analyzed de-identified encounters from the national HTTT program (September 2023-July 2024); 6,213 of 8,160 eligible individuals remained after exclusions for missing data. Phenotypes were derived by k-means clustering of standardized variables capturing encounter timing, modality preference, process duration, and sociodemographic and digital access attributes. Ten-day surveys assessed symptom duration and healthcare utilization. Results Three phenotypes emerged: Delayed/Disrupted Access (n = 1,537; 24.7%), Digitally Engaged but Socioeconomically Vulnerable (n = 1,460; 23.5%), and Mainstream Access and Efficient Utilization (n = 3,216; 51.8%). Mean process duration differed (15.93 [SD 3.84] vs 3.69 [3.31] vs 2.87 [2.41] hours; p < 0.001). Synchronous preference was lowest in the Digitally Engaged group (22.9%); antiviral prescribing was high (88.6%-91.9%). Among 10-day respondents (n = 1,023), symptom duration did not differ. Emergency department visits were most frequent in the Digitally Engaged group (2.3% vs 0.0% and 0.5%; p = 0.02) and urgent care in the Delayed/Disrupted group (5.8% vs 4.1% vs 2.0%; p = 0.02). Conclusions Telehealth use in a national HTTT program formed distinct phenotypes defined by timing, modality, and care-process efficiency. Evaluating equity requires attention to how and when care is delivered, not simply whether it occurred.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.1%
2
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.0%
3
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.8%
5
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
6
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.8%
7
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
8
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.5%
9
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
10
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
11
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.0%
12
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
13
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
14
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
15
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
16
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
17
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
18
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
19
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
20
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
21
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
23
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 71%
0.9%
24
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
25
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses
44 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
26
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
27
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
28
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
29
International Journal of Drug Policy
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
30
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%