The Web-Based Physician is Ready to See You: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey of Physicians Using a Mobile Medical App to Evaluate Patients With Sexually Transmitted Diseases in China.

BACKGROUND: Web-based medical service provision is increasingly becoming common. However, it remains unclear how physicians are responding to this trend and how Web-based and offline medical services are linked. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to examine physicians' use of mobile medical apps for sexually transmitted disease (STD) consultations and identify the physicians who frequently use mobile medical apps to evaluate patients with STD. METHODS: In August 2017, we conducted a nationwide cross-sectional survey among physicians registered on a mobile medical app in China. We collected data on physicians' demographic information, institutional information, and Web-based medical practices. We compared physicians who used mobile medical apps to evaluate patients with STD frequently (at least once a week) with infrequent users. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify physicians who frequently evaluated patients with STD on mobile medical apps. RESULTS: A total of 501 physicians participated in the survey. Among them, three-quarters were men and the average age was 37.6 (SD 8.2) years. Nearly all physicians (492/501, 98.2%) recommended their last Web-based patient with STD to subsequently see a physician in the clinic. More than half (275/501, 54.9%) of physicians recommended STD testing to Web-based patients, and 43.9% (220/501) provided treatment advice to patients with STD. Of all physicians, 21.6% (108/501) used mobile medical apps to evaluate patients with STD through Web more than once a week. Overall, 85.2% (427/501) physicians conducted follow-up consultation for patients with STD using mobile medical apps. Physicians working at institutions with STD prevention materials were associated with frequent evaluation of patients with STD on mobile medical apps (adjusted odds ratio=2.10, 95% CI 1.18-3.74). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians use mobile medical apps to provide a range of services, including Web-based pre- and posttreatment consultations and linkage to offline clinical services. The high rates of referral to clinics suggest that mobile medical apps are used to promote clinic-seeking, and not replace it. Physicians' use of mobile medical apps could benefit sexual minorities and others who avoid formal clinic-based services

Identifying MSM-competent physicians in China: a national online cross-sectional survey among physicians who see male HIV/STI patients

Abstract Background Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at high risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and sexually transmitted infection (STI) in China. Inadequate clinical services and poor clinical competency among physicians are major barriers to improving the sexual health of MSM. This study aims to understand physician clinical competency in providing MSM health services in China. Methods We conducted an online cross-sectional survey among Chinese physicians who have seen male patients for STI complaints in the past year. We obtained information on individual demographics, clinical practice, attitudes toward MSM, and interest in contributing to MSM clinical services. We defined an MSM-competent physician as one who asked male patients about sexual orientation, sexual practices, and recommended HIV/ STI testing during a clinic visit. We conducted multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with MSM competency. Results In total, 501 physicians completed the survey. The most common subspecialties were dermatovenereology (33.1%), urology (30.1%), and general medicine (14.4%). Roughly half (n = 267, 53.3%) reported seeing MSM in the past 12 months. Among physicians who saw MSM in the past 12 months, 60.3% (n = 161) met criteria as MSM-competent physicians, and most (n = 234, 87.6%) MSM-competent physicians reported positive or neutral attitudes towards MSM. Over 60% of all physicians were willing to participate in activities for improving MSM services, such as training and being on a list of physicians willing to serve MSM. MSM-competent physicians showed no sociodemographic differences compared with non MSM-competent physicians. MSM-competent physicians were more willing to have their medical institution named on a public clinic list capable of serving MSM (aOR: 1.70, 95%CI: 1.01–2.86) and being on a public physician list capable of serving MSM (aOR: 1.77, 95%CI: 1.03–3.03). Conclusions MSM-competent physicians included a broad range of individuals that practiced in diverse clinical settings. Most physicians were interested in improving and expanding MSM clinical services, despite having neutral attitudes toward same-sex behavior. Future interventions should focus on developing MSM clinical competency and expanding services that meet the needs of MSM

Identifying MSM-competent physicians in China: a national online cross-sectional survey among physicians who see male HIV/STI patients.

BACKGROUND: Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at high risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and sexually transmitted infection (STI) in China. Inadequate clinical services and poor clinical competency among physicians are major barriers to improving the sexual health of MSM. This study aims to understand physician clinical competency in providing MSM health services in China. METHODS: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey among Chinese physicians who have seen male patients for STI complaints in the past year. We obtained information on individual demographics, clinical practice, attitudes toward MSM, and interest in contributing to MSM clinical services. We defined an MSM-competent physician as one who asked male patients about sexual orientation, sexual practices, and recommended HIV/ STI testing during a clinic visit. We conducted multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with MSM competency. RESULTS: In total, 501 physicians completed the survey. The most common subspecialties were dermatovenereology (33.1%), urology (30.1%), and general medicine (14.4%). Roughly half (n = 267, 53.3%) reported seeing MSM in the past 12 months. Among physicians who saw MSM in the past 12 months, 60.3% (n = 161) met criteria as MSM-competent physicians, and most (n = 234, 87.6%) MSM-competent physicians reported positive or neutral attitudes towards MSM. Over 60% of all physicians were willing to participate in activities for improving MSM services, such as training and being on a list of physicians willing to serve MSM. MSM-competent physicians showed no sociodemographic differences compared with non MSM-competent physicians. MSM-competent physicians were more willing to have their medical institution named on a public clinic list capable of serving MSM (aOR: 1.70, 95%CI: 1.01-2.86) and being on a public physician list capable of serving MSM (aOR: 1.77, 95%CI: 1.03-3.03). CONCLUSIONS: MSM-competent physicians included a broad range of individuals that practiced in diverse clinical settings. Most physicians were interested in improving and expanding MSM clinical services, despite having neutral attitudes toward same-sex behavior. Future interventions should focus on developing MSM clinical competency and expanding services that meet the needs of MSM

Do some prefer to pay? Identifying bias against free COVID-19 tests

Objectives: In the United States, a federal emergency program has made SARS-CoV-2 self-test kits available at no cost. It is unclear how widely free tests are preferred. We conducted a survey to estimate the proportion of respondents who do not prefer a free test. We hypothesized that free tests would not be preferred universally, and that a preference for paying would be more common among those with conservative politics than with liberal politics, regardless of income. Design: Observational study design. Methods: A national sample of US adults completed an online survey. To reduce potential enrollment bias, the survey’s focus was not specified beforehand. To prioritize a high-risk group, participation was limited to those who were unvaccinated or were incompletely vaccinated in the primary series against COVID-19. Participants reported their testing preferences and socio-demographic characteristics, including political affiliation. The main outcome assessed if a participant preferred to pay for a self-test or receive a free one (subsidized by the US government). Results: Among 1215 participants, (73%, n = 886) preferred free self-testing, while 27% (n = 329) preferred to pay for the same testing. After adjusting for income, the odds of preferring to pay for self-testing were 66% higher in “strong” Republicans compared to “strong” Democrats (odds ratio = 1.66, 95% confidence interval = 1.07–2.62). Conclusions: More than a quarter of individuals preferred paying for these tests. This preference was more likely among those with right-wing politics. Policy implications are discussed, along with future research directions

Data_Sheet_1_Salient beliefs related to secondary distribution of COVID-19 self-test kits within social networks.DOCX

BackgroundWidespread access to testing is critical to public health efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary distribution of COVID-19 self-test kits, where an individual distributes test kits to others in their social networks, is a potential strategy to improve access to testing. In this qualitative study, we identified salient beliefs about distributing and accepting COVID-19 self-test kits within one’s social network, as well as ordering COVID-19 self-test kits from the government.MethodsWe recruited 61 participants from a randomized controlled trial (NCT04797858) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to elicit beliefs about (1) distributing COVID-19 self-test kits within one’s social network, (2) receiving test kits from social contacts, and (3) ordering self-test kits from the government. Using validated, open-ended question stems, we identified the most common set of beliefs underlying attitudes, perceived norms (or social referents), and perceived behavioral control (or self-efficacy) toward each of these behaviors.ResultsTwenty-seven out of 30 (90%) of participants who received self-test kits reported distributing the kits to social contacts. These participants described altruistic beliefs about giving others access to testing, and felt approval from family members, friends, and others in their social networks. When receiving test kits from social network contacts, participants described advantages of test kit convenience, but some voiced concern about test kit tampering and confusing instructions. Participants also described perceived logistic barriers to distributing and receiving self-test kits, such as delivering or transporting test kits, or finding time to meet. Participants who ordered test kits from the government also described increased convenience of test access, but described different logistic barriers such as delays in test kit delivery, or not receiving test kits at all.ConclusionIn comparison with government-ordered test kits, the secondary distribution of COVID-19 self-test kits raised unique concerns about test kit quality and instructions, as well as distinctive logistic barriers related to distributing self-test kits to network contacts, which were not raised for test kits ordered from the government. This study demonstrates that beliefs may vary depending on the type of testing behavior, and behavioral interventions may benefit from developing messages tailored to specific testing strategies.</p

Data_Sheet_2_Salient beliefs related to secondary distribution of COVID-19 self-test kits within social networks.DOCX

BackgroundWidespread access to testing is critical to public health efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary distribution of COVID-19 self-test kits, where an individual distributes test kits to others in their social networks, is a potential strategy to improve access to testing. In this qualitative study, we identified salient beliefs about distributing and accepting COVID-19 self-test kits within one’s social network, as well as ordering COVID-19 self-test kits from the government.MethodsWe recruited 61 participants from a randomized controlled trial (NCT04797858) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to elicit beliefs about (1) distributing COVID-19 self-test kits within one’s social network, (2) receiving test kits from social contacts, and (3) ordering self-test kits from the government. Using validated, open-ended question stems, we identified the most common set of beliefs underlying attitudes, perceived norms (or social referents), and perceived behavioral control (or self-efficacy) toward each of these behaviors.ResultsTwenty-seven out of 30 (90%) of participants who received self-test kits reported distributing the kits to social contacts. These participants described altruistic beliefs about giving others access to testing, and felt approval from family members, friends, and others in their social networks. When receiving test kits from social network contacts, participants described advantages of test kit convenience, but some voiced concern about test kit tampering and confusing instructions. Participants also described perceived logistic barriers to distributing and receiving self-test kits, such as delivering or transporting test kits, or finding time to meet. Participants who ordered test kits from the government also described increased convenience of test access, but described different logistic barriers such as delays in test kit delivery, or not receiving test kits at all.ConclusionIn comparison with government-ordered test kits, the secondary distribution of COVID-19 self-test kits raised unique concerns about test kit quality and instructions, as well as distinctive logistic barriers related to distributing self-test kits to network contacts, which were not raised for test kits ordered from the government. This study demonstrates that beliefs may vary depending on the type of testing behavior, and behavioral interventions may benefit from developing messages tailored to specific testing strategies.</p