Background: The use of telehealth for the management and treatment of hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD) has increased across the United States (U.S.), especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Telehealth has the potential to reduce barriers to accessing health care and improve clinical outcomes. However, implementation, outcomes, and health equity implications related to these strategies are not well understood. The purpose of this review was to identify how telehealth is being used by U.S. health care professionals and health systems to manage hypertension and CVD and to describe the impact these telehealth strategies have on hypertension and CVD outcomes, with a special focus on social determinants of health and health disparities. Methods: This study comprised a narrative review of the literature and meta-analyses. The meta-analyses included articles with intervention and control groups to examine the impact of telehealth interventions on changes to select patient outcomes, including systolic and diastolic blood pressure. A total of 38 U.S.-based interventions were included in the narrative review, with 14 yielding data eligible for the meta-analyses. Results: The telehealth interventions reviewed were used to treat patients with hypertension, heart failure, and stroke, with most interventions employing a team-based care approach. These interventions utilized the expertise of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals to collaborate on patient decisions and provide direct care. Among the 38 interventions reviewed, 26 interventions utilized remote patient monitoring (RPM) devices mostly for blood pressure monitoring. Half the interventions used a combination of strategies (e.g., videoconferencing and RPM). Patients using telehealth saw significant improvements in clinical outcomes such as blood pressure control, which were comparable to patients receiving in-person care. In contrast, the outcomes related to hospitalizations were mixed. There were also significant decreases in all-cause mortality when compared to usual care. No study explicitly focused on addressing social determinants of health or health disparities through telehealth for hypertension or CVD. Conclusions: Telehealth appears to be comparable to traditional in-person care for managing blood pressure and CVD and may be seen as a complement to existing care options for some patients. Telehealth can also support team-based care delivery and may benefit patients and health care professionals by increasing opportunities for communication, engagement, and monitoring outside a clinical setting.

Telehealth is a promising intervention for hypertension management and control and was rapidly adopted by health systems to ensure continuity of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rapid evaluations of telehealth strategies at 2 US health systems explored how telehealth affected health care access and blood pressure outcomes among populations disproportionately affected by hypertension. Both health systems implemented telehealth strategies to maintain continuity of health care services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluations used a mixed-method approach; qualitative interviews were conducted with key staff, and quantitative analyses were performed on patient electronic health record data. Both health systems exhibited similar trends in telehealth use, which allowed for continued access to health care for some patients but hindered other patients who had limited access to the internet or the equipment needed. Telehealth provides opportunities for blood pressure control and management. Further evaluation is needed to understand the role of broadband internet access as a social determinant of health and its impact on equitable patient access to health care.

Objectives: This study assessed the associations between parent intent to have their child receive the COVID-19 vaccination, and demographic factors and various child activities, including attendance at in-person education or childcare. Methods: Persons undergoing COVID-19 testing residing in Minnesota and Los Angeles County, California with children aged <12 years completed anonymous internet-based surveys between 10 May and 6 September 2021 to assess factors associated with intention to vaccinate their child. Factors influencing the parents’ decision to have their child attend in-person school or childcare were examined. Estimated adjusted odds rations (AORs, 95% CI) were computed between parents’ intentions regarding children’s COVID-19 vaccination and participation in school and extra-curricular activities using multinomial logistic regression. Results: Compared to parents intending to vaccinate their children (n = 4686 [77.2%]), those undecided (n = 874 [14.4%]) or without intention to vaccinate (n = 508 [8.4%]) tended to be younger, non-White, less educated, and themselves not vaccinated against COVID-19. Their children more commonly participated in sports (aOR:1.51 1.17–1.95) and in-person faith or community activities (aOR:4.71 3.62–6.11). A greater proportion of parents without intention to vaccinate (52.5%) indicated that they required no more information to make their decision in comparison to undecided parents (13.2%). They further indicated that additional information regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness would influence their decision. COVID-19 mitigation measures were the most common factors influencing parents’ decision to have their child attend in-person class or childcare. Conclusions: Several demographic and socioeconomic factors are associated with parents’ decision whether to vaccinate their <12-year-old children for COVID-19. Child participation in in-person activities was associated with parents’ intentions not to vaccinate. Tailored communications may be useful to inform parents’ decisions regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccination.