Telehealth or In-Person HIV Care? Qualitative Study Findings on Decision-Making from People with HIV and HIV Care Providers in South Carolina During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted HIV care services across the United States. Telehealth was rapidly implemented to ensure HIV care continuity. Despite the evidence of unequal telehealth uptake among some people with HIV (PWH), the decision-making processes to determine who received telehealth or in-person care are under-researched. This study assessed which decision criteria and processes determined which HIV care visit type was used by PWH and HIV care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative in-depth interviews with 18 PWH and 10 HIV care providers from South Carolina assessed PWHs’ and HIV care providers’ decision-making criteria and processes for telehealth HIV care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Most PWH (11 out of 18) and all providers had used telehealth for HIV care. To guide visit type decisions, interviewees reported decision-making criteria across four domains: patient-related criteria, clinical criteria, provider preference, and HIV care continuity. Patient-related criteria included patient preference, convenience, fear of COVID-19 exposure and stigma, and transportation barriers. Clinical criteria included the need for a physical exam, a person’s care history and health status. While all identified decision criteria were important, we found a hierarchical structure: care continuity superseded other criteria. Some clinical criteria were reported as decision-relevant criteria by providers but not PWH. Most PWH reported that they were included or took the lead in the visit type decision process. Decision-making processes to determine PWHs’ HIV care visit types considered criteria across multiple domains. The superseding criteria was to sustain HIV care continuity. To guide future telehealth use, shared decision-making is needed to weigh patient-related, provider-related, and clinical decision criteria and maintain care continuity, and to comprehensively include all relevant decision criteria.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Scholar Commons (University of South Carolina)
Published
2025-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000812">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000812</a></p
Primary Topic
Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Telehealth or In-Person HIV Care? Qualitative Study Findings on Decision-Making from People with HIV and HIV Care Providers in South Carolina During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Nicole L. Hair, Sharon Weissman, Caroline Derrick, Daniel Amoatika et al.
Scholar Commons (University of South Carolina)
Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
article

Telehealth or In-Person HIV Care? Qualitative Study Findings on Decision-Making from People with HIV and HIV Care Providers in South Carolina During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Nicole L. Hair, Sharon Weissman, Caroline Derrick, Daniel Amoatika, Nabil Natafgi, Valerie Yelverton, Otis L. Owens, Bankole Olatosi, Jan Ostermann, Xiaoming Li, Christopher Cooke, Shan Qiao, Helmut Albrecht, Salome Joelle Gass
article en

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted HIV care services across the United States. Telehealth was rapidly implemented to ensure HIV care continuity. Despite the evidence of unequal telehealth uptake among some people with HIV (PWH), the decision-making processes to determine who received telehealth or in-person care are under-researched. This study assessed which decision criteria and processes determined which HIV care visit type was used by PWH and HIV care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative in-depth interviews with 18 PWH and 10 HIV care providers from South Carolina assessed PWHs’ and HIV care providers’ decision-making criteria and processes for telehealth HIV care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Most PWH (11 out of 18) and all providers had used telehealth for HIV care. To guide visit type decisions, interviewees reported decision-making criteria across four domains: patient-related criteria, clinical criteria, provider preference, and HIV care continuity. Patient-related criteria included patient preference, convenience, fear of COVID-19 exposure and stigma, and transportation barriers. Clinical criteria included the need for a physical exam, a person’s care history and health status. While all identified decision criteria were important, we found a hierarchical structure: care continuity superseded other criteria. Some clinical criteria were reported as decision-relevant criteria by providers but not PWH. Most PWH reported that they were included or took the lead in the visit type decision process. Decision-making processes to determine PWHs’ HIV care visit types considered criteria across multiple domains. The superseding criteria was to sustain HIV care continuity. To guide future telehealth use, shared decision-making is needed to weigh patient-related, provider-related, and clinical decision criteria and maintain care continuity, and to comprehensively include all relevant decision criteria.

Scholar Commons (University of South Carolina)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.