Telehealth use has increased in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there are disparities in telehealth use based on age, income, race/ethnicity, low health, digital literacy, and limited English proficiency. There are multilevel barriers to telehealth use at the patient, health systems, telehealth portal, and policy levels. To ensure equity in telehealth services and to leverage these services to maximize the reach of health care services, concerted efforts are needed to design telehealth tools and workflows. It should include reimbursement for staff training, patient education, and technical support needed for telehealth use. Furthermore, ongoing monitoring and responsive modifications in the use of telehealth services are needed to promote telehealth equity.
In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) a pandemic . Many local, state, and national governments instituted guidelines for physical distancing [2, 3], and health systems expanded telehealth quickly, and telehealth visits increased across the USA and worldwide, including for supportive and survivorship care in cancer [4, 5]. The policy changes in many countries with coverage of the telehealth visit at the same level as an in-person visit facilitated this transformation. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) defines telehealth as the exchange of medical information from one site to another via electronic communication . It includes telecommunication technologies to support distant clinical health care, patient and professional education, public health, and health administration . For this commentary, we focus on patient-facing telehealth, including audio or video clinical encounters, patient access to their medical records and their medical team, and patient education interventions delivered by telehealth approaches.
Telehealth is expected to remain an essential tool for cancer care beyond the pandemic, including in easing the backlog caused by the pandemic, and notably it can play a critical role in supportive care in cancer. Moreover, global surveillance reports suggest a trend toward increased cancer survival and chronicity,  increasing the demand for supportive and survivorship care services. Additionally, the increased availability and use of oral antineoplastics have reduced the need for in-person visits but increased the need for long-term monitoring for toxicities and medication adherence . Thus, telehealth presents a unique opportunity to support optimal patient-centered care integrating cancer treatment with patient-directed supportive and palliative care. Further, telehealth can extend services that may not be available locally and is convenient for patients; for example, telehealth delivered genetic counseling, psycho-oncology, palliative care, nutritional services, and survivorship follow-up services not requiring physical examination .
However, it is well known that cancer disparities persist through the continuum of care, including supportive and survivorship care [10,11,12]. Patients who have low income , have limited English proficiency (LEP) , are older adults , have low health literacy, and receive care in public hospitals or rural hospital settings have limited access to telemedicine [4, 13,14,15]. In addition, they are also more likely to receive suboptimal supportive care interventions and experience a higher symptom burden during and after cancer treatments [16,17,18,19]. If concerted efforts are not made to address equity in telehealth, it is more likely to exacerbate pre-existing disparities in supportive and survivorship care. This commentary describes the multilevel barriers to telehealth and proposes steps to address these inequities in telehealth.
Barriers to telehealth can be classified into four different levels requiring multilevel approaches to address disparities
Patient level: Older adults who require care of chronic diseases in addition to cancer are likely to have lower access to digital health tools, including lower access to internet, smartphone ownership, and digital health access tools . Together, this reduces access to telehealth video visits [4, 14]. Furthermore, it is exacerbated by hearing deficits and complicated by late effects of cancer treatment, such as chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment and peripheral neuropathy. Similarly, low-income individuals have lower rates of smartphone ownership and access to the internet  and lower rates of engagement with telehealth . Patients with LEP may not gain the level of care required due to misunderstanding care delivered via telehealth and may even be excluded from telehealth video visits if interpretation services are not included in the systems . For example, 33% of rural Americans lack access to internet that can support telehealth video visits while also experiencing higher chronic disease burden and lower access to health services . Nouri et al. reported lower telehealth use in Black/African American and Latinx patients in an urban safety net, highlighting the role of entrenched systemic racism in health care.
Health system level: Very few health care systems had robust telehealth use before the pandemic except tele-dermatology  and organizations like Kaiser Permanente [23, 24] that had implemented telehealth visits before the pandemic. At the health system level, the clinic workflows designed for in-person visits need optimization for telehealth to ensure that critical care is not missed, and team-based care is seamlessly integrated into a telehealth model.
Telehealth systems: Current telehealth digital systems are complex and not designed for accessibility for older patients and for patients who may have limited digital literacy . They are also not optimized for smartphone use, which is more likely to be used by low-income individuals and crucial for internet access in low- and middle-income countries. Most telehealth systems have limited functionality for medical interpreters’ use, thus creating barriers for individuals who have LEP.
Policy level: At the policy level, the most significant barrier to telehealth is the reimbursement model that prioritizes in-person visits . In addition, lower reimbursement for audio-only versus video visits is likely to penalize institutions that provide care for medically underserved patients and is likely to discourage telehealth use. Such limitations discourage institutions that deliver audio-only encounters to provide telehealth services and serve rural and low-income patients.
The increase in telehealth entails great opportunities to increase patients’ access to cancer professionals and to streamline the workflow of health care providers during and beyond the COVID-19 period. Furthermore, telehealth holds tremendous potential for the transforming the follow-up care, with a reduced burden for in-person visits. However, important concerns relating to associated regulatory frameworks, digital poverty and exclusion, and the respect of patients’ preferences need to be addressed concomitantly to its deployment. Here, we present a clear multilevel strategy and development of best practices required to address these barriers (Table 1). First, at the patient level, we recommend a comprehensive assessment for patient-level barriers, including readiness to use telehealth, access to broadband, disabilities that limit telehealth use, and limited digital literacy. Telehealth access can be improved through interventions such as patient-level training, voice-activated commands, simpler designs, engaging informal caregivers, and finally improving interpreters’ access to the telehealth portal. Second, at the health system level, it is crucial to design clinical workflows with a health equity lens to not exacerbate existing disparities but to increase access to care. To be genuinely successful, patient education and training for digital and telehealth tools must be built within clinical workflows to address disparities in access. While this training is often time-consuming and resource-intensive, it is an investment in excellent cancer care that is likely to increase patient engagement. One potential option is to leverage lay health workers and navigators for this type of training. Third, telehealth systems were primarily designed for business community and have not been optimized for team-based care including interpreters, volunteers, and administrative personnel. These systems should address these barriers, informed by patient experience, and incorporate feedback from end-users, including both clinicians and patients on an ongoing basis. Finally, telehealth can be improved at the policy level by continuing reimbursement for telehealth; setting requirements for telehealth systems including ease of access, privacy, reimbursement for time, and resources for patient training; and increasing support for access to broadband and telehealth devices for low-income individuals. To gain additional benefits from digital technologies, greater personalization, monitoring, and engagement of patients with digital solutions must be integrated into services.
Going forward, the supportive care community can build systematic and collaborative programs of pragmatic research to optimize equitable telehealth clinical models. Such research should continue to shape developments of telehealth in cancer, exploring and testing solutions to address barriers at all levels. Ongoing research programs should evaluate comprehensive cancer care outcomes, patient-reported measures, ease of use, patient engagement, patient preferences, and implementation outcomes with a specific focus on disparity indicators (e.g., reach, adoption, and sustainability). It is also essential that these research programs influence policy across the health care systems. As the peak multi-national association for excellence in cancer supportive care, MASCC will be best placed to develop evidence-based guidance for solutions and implementation strategies to overcome disparity and maximize equity in telehealth for people affected by cancer.
Availability of data and material
Cucinotta D, Vanelli M (2020) WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic. Acta Biomed 91(1):157–160
Woskie LR et al (2021) Early social distancing policies in Europe, changes in mobility & COVID-19 case trajectories: insights from Spring 2020. PLoS One 16(6):e0253071
Moore RC et al (2020) Experience with social distancing early in the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States: implications for public health messaging. medRxiv
Darcourt JG et al (2021) Analysis of the implementation of telehealth visits for care of patients with cancer in Houston during the COVID-19 pandemic. JCO Oncol Pract 17(1):e36–e43
Tresenriter M et al (2021) The implementation of an emergency medicine telehealth system during a pandemic. J Emerg Med 60(4):548–553
https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-General-Information/Telehealth/Telehealth-Codes. Accessed 17 Oct 2021
Allemani C et al (2018) Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000–14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet 391(10125):1023–1075
Gebbia V et al (2012) Adherence, compliance and persistence to oral antineoplastic therapy: a review focused on chemotherapeutic and biologic agents. Expert Opin Drug Saf 11(Suppl 1):S49-59
Chan RJ, et al (2021) The efficacy, challenges, and facilitators of telemedicine in post-treatment cancer survivorship care: an overview of systematic reviews. Ann Oncol:S0923-7534(21)04464-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.001
Hardy D, Du DY (2021) Socioeconomic and racial disparities in cancer stage at diagnosis, tumor size, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of women with breast cancer, 2007–2016. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities 8(4):990–1001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-020-00855-y
Pinheiro LC et al (2016) Understanding racial differences in health-related quality of life in a population-based cohort of breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat 159(3):535–543
Surbone A, Halpern MT (2016) Unequal cancer survivorship care: addressing cultural and sociodemographic disparities in the clinic. Support Care Cancer 24(12):4831–4833
Khoong EC et al (2020) The use of technology for communicating with clinicians or seeking health information in a multilingual urban cohort: cross-sectional survey. J Med Internet Res 22(4):e16951
Lam K et al (2020) Assessing telemedicine unreadiness among older adults in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Intern Med 180(10):1389–1391
Lopez AM, Lam K, Thota R (2021) Barriers and facilitators to telemedicine: can you hear me now? Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 41:25–36
Ashing KT, George M, Jones V (2018) Health-related quality of life and care satisfaction outcomes: informing psychosocial oncology care among Latina and African-American young breast cancer survivors. Psychooncology 27(4):1213–1220
Ashing-Giwa KT, Lim JW (2009) Examining the impact of socioeconomic status and socioecologic stress on physical and mental health quality of life among breast cancer survivors. Oncol Nurs Forum 36(1):79–88
Santos Salas A et al (2019) Social disparities and symptom burden in populations with advanced cancer: specialist palliative care providers’ perspectives. Support Care Cancer 27(12):4733–4744
John DA et al (2014) Disparities in perceived unmet need for supportive services among patients with lung cancer in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium. Cancer 120(20):3178–3191
Hirko KA, Kerver JM, Ford S, Szafranski C, Beckett J, Kitchen C, Wendling AL (2020) Telehealth in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: implications for rural health disparities. J Am Med Inform Assoc 27(11):1816–1818. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaa156
Nouri S, Khoong EC, Lyles CR, Karliner L (2020) Addressing equity in telemedicine for chronic disease management during the Covid-19 pandemic. NEJM Catalyst 2020
Uppal SK et al (2021) The clinical utility of teledermoscopy in the era of telemedicine. Dermatol Ther 34(2):e14766
Harris G (2000) Kaiser Permanente Tele-Home Health Research Project. Telemed Today 8(1):34–36
Johnston B et al (2000) Outcomes of the Kaiser Permanente Tele-Home Health Research Project. Arch Fam Med 9(1):40–45
Shaw J, Brewer LC, Veinot T (2021) Recommendations for health equity and virtual care arising from the COVID-19 pandemic: narrative review. JMIR Form Res 5(4):e23233
Chan A et al (2020) Cancer survivorship care during COVID-19-perspectives and recommendations from the MASCC survivorship study group. Support Care Cancer 28(8):3485–3488
Consent to participate
Consent for publication
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest related to this work. Dr Niharika Dixit reports receiving honorarium for participating in an advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb outside the submitted work.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Dixit, N., Van Sebille, Y., Crawford, G.B. et al. Disparities in telehealth use: How should the supportive care community respond?. Support Care Cancer 30, 1007–1010 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06629-4
- Health equity
- Cancer care
- Barriers in access