Teleneuropsychology practice survey during COVID-19 within the United States. Issue 6 (2nd November 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rochette, Amber D.; Rahman-Filipiak, Annalise; Spencer, Robert J.; Marshall, David; Stelmokas, Julija E.
• Is Part Of: Applied neuropsychology. Volume 29:Issue 6(2022)
• Page Start: 1312
• Page End: 1322
• Publication Date: 2022-11-02
• Subjects: COVID-19 -- service delivery -- survey -- telehealth -- teleneuropsychology; Neuropsychology -- Periodicals; Cognition disorders -- Periodicals; Brain -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Brain -- Imaging -- Periodicals; Brain -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Diagnostic Imaging -- Periodicals; Neuropsychological Tests -- Periodicals; Adult; 616.8
• DOI: 10.1080/23279095.2021.1872576
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2327-9095

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: Identify factors influencing service delivery changes during COVID-19 and examine barriers and provider satisfaction with teleneuropsychology (teleNP). Method: Licensed clinical neuropsychologists within the United States recruited via neuropsychology-specific listservs (July–August 2020) to complete an online survey. Results: A total of 261 individuals completed the survey. Most (76%) reported delivering in-person testing in some capacity at the time of our survey. Relatively more private practitioners identified concerns with privacy/confidentiality (45.2% vs. 17.9%; χ 2 (2) = 6.99, p < 0.05), legal issues (47.6% vs. 17.9%; χ 2 (2) = 8.06, p < 0.05), and an undesirable precedent for legal/forensic cases (59.5% vs. 15.4%; χ 2 (2) = 17.54, p < 0.001) compared to hospital or other medical (non-VA) practitioners. Multiple resources informed teleNP protocols, such as organization guidelines (87.6%), literature review (75.9%), webinars (72.4%), and consultation (68%). Several factors influenced test selection, including availability of normative data (70.1%), test familiarity (66.4%), administration time (63.5%), and evidence base (60.6%). Reported barriers to continuing teleNP after COVID-19 included need for improved teleNP norms (85.9%), domain coverage (84.7%), improved patient access to technology (74.1%) and further validation studies (84.1%). Conclusion: TeleNP may not be feasible in all settings and/or referrals. Respondents employed multiple resources in aggregating teleNP protocols and considered several factors when selecting tests. Results highlight the complex and varied decision-making processes utilized by respondents to adapt to service delivery changes. Considering the many benefits of teleNP, future research addressing some of the potentially modifiable factors (e.g., technology access, attitudes regarding teleNP) and significant development needs for teleNP itself (i.e., improved teleNP norms, further validation studies, etc.) is warranted.