Table 3.
Comparison of HIV telehealth appointment quality to in-person appointments
| How did the HIV telehealth appointment compare to in-person? | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Worse n = 29 | Same/Better n = 14 | Total n = 43 | P-value | |||
| n | (%) | n | (%) | n | ||
| Age | ||||||
| 50 < 60 | 14 | (48.3%) | 8 | (57.1%) | 22 | 0.747 |
| 60 ≤ 73 | 15 | (51.7%) | 6 | (42.9%) | 21 | |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 15 | (51.7%) | 6 | (42.9%) | 21 | 0.747 |
| Female | 14 | (48.3%) | 8 | (57.1%) | 22 | |
| Education | ||||||
| ≤ High school | 19 | (65.5%) | 4 | (28.6%) | 23 | 0.048 |
| >High school | 10 | (34.5% | 10 | (71.4%) | 20 | |
| Race | ||||||
| Non-white | 22 | (75.9%) | 8 | (57.1%) | 30 | 0.292 |
| White | 7 | (24.1%) | 6 | (42.9%) | 13 | |
| Language | ||||||
| English | 22 | (75.9%) | 14 | (100.0%) | 36 | 0.076 |
| Spanish | 7 | (24.1%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 7 | |
| Place of Birth | ||||||
| US and Puerto Rico | 22 | (75.9%) | 12 | (85.7%) | 34 | 0.693 |
| Outside the US | 7 | (24.1%) | 2 | (14.3%) | 9 | |
| Number of Comorbidities | ||||||
| 0 < 4 | 10 | (34.5%) | 4 | (28.6%) | 14 | 1 |
| 4 ≤ 14 | 19 | (65.5%) | 10 | (71.4%) | 29 | |
| Mental Health or Substance Use Condition | ||||||
| None | 12 | (41.4%) | 4 | (28.6%) | 16 | 0.512 |
| At least one | 17 | (58.6%) | 10 | (71.4%) | 27 | |
| Location of Services | ||||||
| AMC | 16 | (55.2%) | 5 | (35.7%) | 21 | 0.332 |
| FQHC | 13 | (44.8%) | 9 | (64.3%) | 22 | |
| Difficulties Using Technology | ||||||
| None | 13 | (44.8%) | 9 | (64.3%) | 22 | 0.332 |
| Some | 16 | (55.2%) | 5 | (35.7%) | 21 | |
| Telehealth Format | ||||||
| Phone | 13 | (44.8%) | 4 | (28.6%) | 17 | 0.343 |
| Video | 16 | (55.2%) | 10 | (71.4%) | 26 | |