Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth has rapidly been adopted to deliver health care services around the world. To date, studies have not compared people’s experiences with telehealth services during the pandemic in Australia to their experiences with traditional in-person visits. Objective: This study aimed to compare participants’ perceptions of telehealth consults to their perceptions of traditional in-person visits and investigate whether people believe that telehealth services would be useful after the pandemic. Methods: A national, cross-sectional, community survey was conducted between June 5 and June 12, 2020 in Australia. In total, 1369 participants who were aged ≥18 years and lived in Australia were recruited via targeted advertisements on social media (ie, Facebook and Instagram). Participants responded to survey questions about their telehealth experience, which included a free-text response option. A generalized linear model was used to estimate the adjusted relative risks of having a poorer telehealth experience than a traditional in-person visit experience. Content analysis was performed to determine the reasons why telehealth experiences were worse than traditional in-person visit experiences. Results: Of the 596 telehealth users, the majority of respondents (n=369, 61.9%) stated that their telehealth experience was “just as good as” or “better than” their traditional in-person medical appointment experience. On average, respondents perceived that telehealth would be moderately useful to very useful for medical appointments after the COVID-19 pandemic ends (mean 3.67, SD 1.1). Being male (P=.007), having a history of both depression and anxiety (P=.016), and lower patient activation scores (ie, individuals’ willingness to take on the role of managing their health/health care) (P=.036) were significantly associated with a poor telehealth experience. In total, 6 overarching themes were identified from free-text responses for why participants’ telehealth experiences were poorer than their traditional in-person medical appointment experiences, as follows: communication is not as effective, limitations with technology, issues with obtaining prescriptions and pathology results, reduced confidence in their doctor, additional burden for complex care, and inability to be physically examined. Conclusions: Based on our sample’s responses, telehealth appointment experiences were comparable to traditional in-person medical appointment experiences. Telehealth may be worthwhile as a mode of health care delivery while the pandemic continues, and it may continue to be worthwhile after the pandemic.

Background: Misinformation about COVID-19 is common and has been spreading rapidly across the globe through social media platforms and other information systems. Understanding what the public knows about COVID-19 and identifying beliefs based on misinformation can help shape effective public health communications to ensure efforts to reduce viral transmission are not undermined. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and factors associated with COVID-19 misinformation in Australia and their changes over time. Methods: This prospective, longitudinal national survey was completed by adults (18 years and above) across April (n=4362), May (n=1882), and June (n=1369) 2020. Results: Stronger agreement with misinformation was associated with younger age, male gender, lower education level, and language other than English spoken at home (P<.01 for all). After controlling for these variables, misinformation beliefs were significantly associated (P<.001) with lower levels of digital health literacy, perceived threat of COVID-19, confidence in government, and trust in scientific institutions. Analyses of specific government-identified misinformation revealed 3 clusters: prevention (associated with male gender and younger age), causation (associated with lower education level and greater social disadvantage), and cure (associated with younger age). Lower institutional trust and greater rejection of official government accounts were associated with stronger agreement with COVID-19 misinformation. Conclusions: The findings of this study highlight important gaps in communication effectiveness, which must be addressed to ensure effective COVID-19 prevention.

Issue addressed: To investigate whether Australians have experienced any positive effects during the COVID‐19 pandemic.Methods: National online longitudinal survey. As part of a June 2020 survey, participants (n = 1370) were asked ‘In your life, have you experienced any positive effects from the COVID‐19 pandemic’ (yes/no) and also completed the World Health Organisation‐Five well‐being index. Differences were explored by demographic variables. Free‐text responses were thematically coded.Results: Nine hundred sixty participants (70%) reported experiencing at least one positive effect during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Living with others (P = .045) and employment situation (P < .001) at baseline (April) were associated with experiencing positive effects. Individuals working for pay from home were more likely to experience positive effects compared to those who were not working for pay (aOR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.63, P < .001) or who were working for pay outside the home (aOR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.58, P < .001). 54.2% of participants reported a sufficient level of well‐being, 23.2% low well‐being and a further 22.6% very low well‐being. Of those experiencing positive effects, 945/960 (98%) provided an explanation. The three most common themes were ‘Family time’ (33%), ‘Work flexibility’ (29%) and ‘Calmer life’ (19%).Conclusions: A large proportion of participants reported positive effects resulting from changes to daily life due to the COVID‐19 pandemic in Australia.So what: The needs of people living alone, and of those having to work outside the home or who are unemployed, should be considered by health policymakers and employers in future pandemic preparedness efforts.

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk communication is a challenge for clinical practice, where physicians find it difficult to explain the absolute risk of a CVD event to patients with varying health literacy. Converting the probability to heart age is increasingly used to promote lifestyle change, but a rapid review of biological age interventions found no clear evidence that they motivate behavior change. Objective: In this review, we aim to identify the content and effects of heart age interventions. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies presenting heart age interventions to adults for CVD risk communication in April 2020 (later updated in March 2021). The Johanna Briggs risk of bias assessment tool was applied to randomized studies. Behavior change techniques described in the intervention methods were coded. Results: From a total of 7926 results, 16 eligible studies were identified; these included 5 randomized web-based experiments, 5 randomized clinical trials, 2 mixed methods studies with quantitative outcomes, and 4 studies with qualitative analysis. Direct comparisons between heart age and absolute risk in the 5 web-based experiments, comprising 5514 consumers, found that heart age increased positive or negative emotional responses (4/5 studies), increased risk perception (4/5 studies; but not necessarily more accurate) and recall (4/4 studies), reduced credibility (2/3 studies), and generally had no effect on lifestyle intentions (4/5 studies). One study compared heart age and absolute risk to fitness age and found reduced lifestyle intentions for fitness age. Heart age combined with additional strategies (eg, in-person or phone counseling) in applied settings for 9582 patients improved risk control (eg, reduced cholesterol levels and absolute risk) compared with usual care in most trials (4/5 studies) up to 1 year. However, clinical outcomes were no different when directly compared with absolute risk (1/1 study). Mixed methods studies identified consultation time and content as important outcomes in actual consultations using heart age tools. There were differences between people receiving an older heart age result and those receiving a younger or equal to current heart age result. The heart age interventions included a wide range of behavior change techniques, and conclusions were sometimes biased in favor of heart age with insufficient supporting evidence. The risk of bias assessment indicated issues with all randomized clinical trials. Conclusions: The findings of this review provide little evidence that heart age motivates lifestyle behavior change more than absolute risk, but either format can improve clinical outcomes when combined with other behavior change strategies. The label for the heart age concept can affect outcomes and should be pretested with the intended audience. Future research should consider consultation time and differentiate between results of older and younger heart age. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): NPRR2-10.1101/2020.05.03.20089938

Objectives: To explore the variation in understanding, attitudes and uptake of COVID-19 health advice during the 2020 pandemic lockdown by health literacy. Study design: National cross sectional community survey. Setting: Australian general public. Participants: Adults aged over 18 years (n = 4362). Main outcome measures: Knowledge, attitudes and behaviours related to COVID-19; health literacy and socio-demographic factors. Results: People with inadequate health literacy had poorer understanding of COVID-19 symptoms (49% vs 68%; p<0.001), were less able to identify behaviours to prevent infection (59% vs 72%; p<0.001), and experienced more difficulty finding information and understanding government messaging about COVID-19 than people with adequate health literacy. They were less likely to rate social distancing as important (6.1 vs 6.5, p<0.001) and reported more difficulty remembering/accessing medication since lockdown (3.6 vs 2.7, p<0.001). Importantly there was higher endorsement of misinformation beliefs related to COVID-19 and vaccination in people with lower health literacy. Similar results were observed among people who primarily speak a language other than English at home. Conclusion: Our findings show important disparities by health literacy and language in COVID-19 related knowledge, attitudes and behaviours that have the potential to undermine efforts to reduce viral transmission and may lead to social inequalities in health outcomes in Australia. Those with the greatest burden of chronic disease are most disadvantaged, and most likely to experience severe disease and die from COVID-19. Addressing the health literacy needs of the community in public health messaging about COVID-19 must now be a priority in Australia.