NewsMakers
Telehealth might be best as a supplement to office visits, not a replacement
The findings suggest that while patients 70 and older may well be capable of navigating the technical aspects of virtual doctor visits and are interested in communicating online with health-care professionals, their opinions on the effectiveness of the care they receive varied widely.
With the pandemic, there has been a rise in the use of virtual appointments for patients seeking health care. A new study by Tufts researchers, however, suggests that for many older and chronically ill patients, telehealth appointments may be most effective when they augment in-person health-care visits rather than fully replace them.
The findings suggest that while patients 70 and older may well be capable of navigating the technical aspects of virtual doctor visits and are interested in communicating online with health-care professionals, their opinions on the effectiveness of the care they receive varied widely.
The study, which focused on older patients with serious and chronic kidney disease, found that not all patients were satisfied with telehealth. People of color, including patients who identified as Black, Native American, or Hispanic, or required additional accessibility features such as interpreters, were largely dissatisfied with telehealth.
Patients of color disproportionately suffer from chronic kidney disease and may more often contend with challenges associated with at-home care, such as inadequate space for home-dialysis and limited broadband access to support video-telehealth visits, said Keren Ladin, associate professor of occupational therapy and community health, who led the study.
Owing to historical and experienced discrimination, “we found that patients of color were less comfortable with telehealth and had more concerns about the quality of the care and being deprived of care in a telehealth setting than white patients did,” said Ladin.
Ladin said she was surprised by these findings, given that the study, which was recently published in JAMA Network Open, was conducted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“I thought people of color who were at higher risk would prefer to stay out of the health system for longer, but that was not what we found,” she said. Black patients also reported that telehealth appointments prevented them from connecting meaningfully with their doctors, contributing to feelings of mistrust.
“It was really striking,” said Ladin. “One woman told us, ‘I need to see the physician’s eyes to know that they were understanding me,’ underscoring that the persistent impacts of structural racism on health-care experiences of patients of color.”
The patients did appreciate that telehealth facilitated the ability of care partners such as family members to join them for appointments, something that has been limited during the pandemic. Beyond the comfort of accompanying patients, care partner participation can help improve treatment and adherence and patient education for older patients managing complex, chronic illnesses such as kidney disease, Ladin said.
Downsides from the Clinical Perspective
For clinicians, the low regard for telehealth appointments was more pronounced. A majority of the physicians interviewed remotely from Boston, Chicago, Portland (Maine), and San Diego equated telehealth with lower-quality care.
They could not, for example, conduct physical examinations and lab tests virtually, nor could they naturally build and maintain a personal rapport with chronic-disease patients. Patients, too, were worried about this.
“We heard loud and clear from clinicians that they felt that the human aspects of their job that they love so much—the communication with patients and those relationships—were fraught and damaged by this flat interaction style,” Ladin said. She conceded that although clinicians were generally dissatisfied with telehealth in its current form, most agreed that it did provide critical insight into a patient’s home, which was previously unavailable.
“Up until now, the patient’s home environment was really a black box,” Ladin said, “Whatever the patient said when they came into the office was accepted as truth.” During video visits, however, doctors are able to see patient’s homes, the exact medications they are taking, and interact directly with care partners. “That was a positive feature of these types of visits—more holistic care.”
To address the range of obstacles perceived by both patients and clinicians in the study, the researchers recommend doctors share detailed post-visit summaries with patients and care partners, leave time during virtual visits for patients to absorb difficult news, and inquire specifically after patients’ emotions in the absence of nonverbal cues. Structural inequalities require a longer-term but equally important investment beyond simple communication strategies.
“I wish I could say we are doing it perfectly in person, and that telehealth is the only challenge we’re facing,” said Ladin. “We’re not. We need to work on this both in person and for telehealth.”
She stressed the importance of increasing the availability of interpreters during virtual visits and a more diverse workforce throughout the medical training pipeline, including nurses and physician assistants.
“The type of community-building and relationship repair that need to happen in health care will go a long way in improving this aspect,” said Ladin. “Diversifying the health-care workforce is crucial.”
Many telehealth services will stay covered by Medicare through 2023, under current law. After that, the future of remote health care for older Americans remains uncertain. Much of it will depend on whether perceptions among these patients, and in particular those with chronic illness, are positive. For Ladin, the benefits are as clear as the drawbacks.
“At its best, maybe we are getting back to a more patient-centered approach,” she said. “But I would be cautious to use it as a replacement device. For older, complex patients, we want to strive for a balance between seeing somebody in person in the clinic most times and then occasionally seeing them onscreen.”
NewsMakers
Filipinos prioritize independence as legacy for longer lives
Independence and financial freedom are viewed as the inheritance they want to leave their families, according to 88% of respondents. It rises to 95% among Filipinos aged 25 to 34, highlighting a growing shift toward self-sufficiency and long-term financial planning.
Filipinos are shifting how they view legacy, prioritizing independence, financial freedom, and self-reliance as they plan for longer lifespans.
This is according to the Manulife Asia Care Survey 2026: Independence as the New Legacy, which gathered insights from more than 9,000 respondents across Asia, including 1,000 in the Philippines. The study explores shifting attitudes toward longevity, health, caregiving, retirement preparedness, and overall financial well-being.
It was found out in the survey that independence and financial freedom are viewed as the inheritance they want to leave their families, according to 88% of respondents. It rises to 95% among Filipinos aged 25 to 34, highlighting a growing shift toward self-sufficiency and long-term financial planning.
It was also revealed in the survey that Filipinos are increasingly associating independence with maintaining good health to avoid becoming a burden to loved ones, and having access to quality healthcare. Fifty six percent of those who prioritize independence as a legacy cited health and quality of life as their key concerns, while 53% identified unexpected expenses later in life as a major challenge.
To stay independent as you age, you need good physical and mental health, as 92% of respondents agree that preventive care and self-care habits can help extend years of self-reliance. Popular wellness practices include spending time with family and friends (52%), maintaining a balanced diet (50%), and exercising regularly (48%). However, fewer Filipinos are taking proactive steps such as preventive health screenings (26%) or building social networks to combat isolation (29%).
Pressures faced by the country’s “sandwich generation,” or individuals supporting both parents and children, were also highlighted in the survey results. Sixty seven percent of respondents provide care to a family member, averaging 32 hours per week, while 68% offer financial support to relatives, allocating nearly half of their monthly income to these responsibilities.
These caregiving and financial commitments are affecting long-term planning. Among respondents, 74% said family obligations hinder their ability to build self-reliance, while 71% reported delaying their own medical care due to caregiving and financial pressures.
With increasing spending remains a concern, 82% of Filipinos are worried about the cost of future care, significantly higher than the regional average of 66%. It was estimated that respondents would need approximately PhP34,485 per month to cover future care-related expenses. Most plan to rely on personal savings (87%) and investments (59%), while only 21% expect financial support from their children.
The survey relayed that Fiipinos are becoming more proactive in preparing for longevity, with many planning to shift toward income-generating investments, diversify their portfolios, and seek professional financial advice to strengthen retirement readiness and long-term financial security.
NewsMakers
Coffee and heart health: How many cups of caffeinated coffee are safe to drink each day?
For most adults, consuming up to 400 mg of caffeine/day (or up to 5, 8-ounce cups of caffeinated coffee per day) is safe and appears to be linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease for some individuals.
Previous studies have found that caffeine is the world’s most popular stimulant and psychoactive substance, and coffee is the most common way people consume caffeine. The latest research supports the conclusion that for most adults, consuming up to 400 mg of caffeine/day (or up to 5, 8-ounce cups of caffeinated coffee per day) is safe and appears to be linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease for some individuals.
However, higher doses of caffeine, such as levels found in energy drinks including energy shots, may cause cardiovascular harm, according to a new American Heart Association scientific statement, “Caffeine and Cardiovascular Disease,” published in the American Heart Association’s flagship peer-reviewed scientific journal Circulation.
“Caffeine consumed in coffee is a key part of daily life for millions of people, and in our review of the most recent research, for most adults, intake of up to 400 mg of caffeine/day, the equivalent of up to 5 cups of caffeinated coffee per day without added sugars or fillers, is safe and does not increase cardiovascular risk,” said Chair of the scientific statement volunteer writing group Gregory M. Marcus, M.D., M.A.S., FAHA, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine and the associate chief of Cardiology for Research at the University of California, San Francisco Health. “However, high doses of caffeine, such as those found in energy drinks including energy shots, may have harmful effects on the heart and should be avoided.”
The statement authors note that studying the effects of caffeine on the cardiovascular system is challenging. Coffee is the main source of caffeine in most research studies, and the observed cardiovascular effects may be due to other compounds in coffee. For example, experimental studies suggest that the bioactive compounds in coffee may have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, which may help explain some health benefits. It’s also difficult to separate the effects of caffeine from other ingredients usually added to coffee, such as milk, cream, flavored syrups and/or sugar. In addition, most studies on caffeine are observational, meaning they cannot prove cause and effect.
Although coffee is the main source of caffeine for most adults, tea, chocolate, soda and energy drinks, as well as over-the-counter and prescription medications, also contribute to overall caffeine intake. More research is needed about other products with caffeine in order to understand caffeine content and caffeine’s impact on cardiovascular health.
The new scientific statement details the most recent research primarily on caffeinated coffee and the potential impact of caffeine in coffee on high blood pressure, cholesterol, Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, other arrhythmias and other cardiovascular conditions.
Caffeine and cardiovascular health: key things to know
- Based on the results of the latest research studies reviewed, consuming up to 400 mg of caffeine per day, or no more than 3 to 5, 8-ounce cups of regular black caffeinated coffee per day (without sugars, sweeteners, flavors or added fillers), is considered safe for most adults. A regular brewed, non-specialty, caffeinated coffee typically contains 9.4-20.6 mg of caffeine per fluid ounce.
- Consuming caffeinated coffee without added sugars, flavors or cream was linked to a lower risk of Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, heart failure and some irregular heart rhythms.
- Randomized trials, the most rigorous and reliable type of study design, have shown that caffeine consumption in coffee is associated with a lower risk of atrial fibrillation but also a higher risk of premature ventricular contractions.
- Adding sugar, flavored syrups, milk and/or cream to coffee likely reduces its potential health benefits, and more research is needed to understand the impact of these additives.
- Higher caffeine intake, such as levels found in energy drinks including energy shots, was associated with cardiovascular harm, such as increased risk of high blood pressure and irregular heart rhythm. Energy drink shots may contain 40-69 mg of caffeine per fluid ounce, 3-4 times more caffeine than regular caffeinated coffee.
How does caffeine affect the body?
Caffeine consumed in coffee is metabolized by the liver and generally reaches peak concentration for most people within an hour. However, how quickly individuals process caffeine depends on their genetics, metabolism, age and past caffeine use. When more caffeinated coffee is consumed regularly, some people may develop a tolerance to higher levels of caffeine.
Other people may feel stronger effects from the same amount of caffeine. Short-term effects of caffeine may include temporary increases in blood pressure, heart rate, blood sugar and alertness. Some people may experience heart palpitations and/or sleep disruption.
Specific health impacts of caffeine
- Effects on blood pressure: Studies have found that caffeinated coffee consumption may affect blood pressure differently depending on how much is consumed. In people with optimal blood pressure, drinking 1–3 cups a day was associated with an increased risk of developing high blood pressure, while drinking more than 3 cups per day was associated with a lower risk. High doses of caffeine (such as those from energy drinks or energy shots) can significantly increase blood pressure, especially in people who already have high blood pressure.
- Effects on Type 2 diabetes: Research suggests that caffeinated coffee may reduce insulin sensitivity in the short term. In addition, drinking black, caffeinated coffee (no additives, flavors or sweeteners) regularly was linked to a lower risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. However, this benefit may be due to compounds in coffee other than caffeine. More research is needed to clarify the impact on Type 2 diabetes of caffeinated coffee vs. various compounds in coffee.
- Effects on cholesterol: Data from randomized clinical trials indicate cafestol, a component in both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee, was associated with higher levels of low-density lipoprotein (also known as “bad” cholesterol). Cafestol is present in unfiltered coffee (such as espresso, French press, Turkish coffee or boiled coffee) but not present in coffee brewed with paper filters or instant coffee. More research is needed to understand which products have higher levels of cafestol and their mechanisms.
- Effects on heart rhythm: The most recent analyses of health measures with self-reported information from participants have found that drinking 1-3 cups of caffeinated coffee per day was not associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation or abnormal heart rhythm. However, caffeinated coffee at that same level may be associated with more early beats from the lower chamber of the heart, called premature ventricular contractions (or PVCs). Very high doses of caffeine (such as those in caffeinated energy drinks or energy shots) have been linked to abnormal heart rhythm in people usually considered to have low cardiovascular disease risk, such as healthy adults younger than age 30.
- Effects on heart disease and stroke: Drinking 2-4 cups of caffeinated coffee per day was linked to a lower risk of heart disease, heart failure and stroke. However, drinking more than 4 cups of caffeinated coffee a day may increase the risk of heart failure.
Not all sources of caffeine are the same
More research is necessary to investigate the different health impacts of various types of caffeinated coffee and other products with caffeine, such as tea, soda, energy drinks and energy shots, and foods. There have been fewer studies focused on tea vs. coffee; however, tea has been associated with reduced risk of atrial fibrillation, heart failure and stroke, similar to caffeinated coffee. Energy drinks, bars, gels and caffeine-based supplements often contain other added ingredients that may increase the absorption of caffeine, may accelerate its effects on the body, may raise blood pressure and increase the risk of cardiovascular harm.
More randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of caffeine in coffee and other products that have caffeine on cardiovascular health are needed to better understand how caffeine affects different people and how different sources of caffeine impact heart health. The writing group emphasized that there is also a need for research focused on caffeinated energy drinks and other popular products containing caffeine. Due to the lack of sufficient, rigorous data to develop guidance on recommendations for caffeine intake, caffeine was not referenced in the Association’s 2026 Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health.
“Although research suggests that caffeine consumption may be associated with certain cardiovascular benefits for some people, it’s important to remember that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy for safe caffeine consumption. People can respond very differently to caffeine based on various factors, such as age, medications, underlying health conditions, genetics and how quickly their bodies metabolize it. What may be a reasonable amount for one person could cause unwanted effects, such as heart palpitations, anxiety or sleep disruption, in another. That’s why it’s important to pay attention to how your body responds to caffeine and talk with your healthcare team about what is right for you,” Marcus said.
Co-authors are Vice Chair Frank B. Hu, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D., FAHA; Rob M. van Dam, Ph.D.; Marilyn C. Cornelis, Ph.D.; Thomas A. Dewland, M.D.; JungHee Kang, Ph.D., M.P.H., R.N.; Susanna C. Larsson, Ph.D.; Robert L. Page II, Pharm.D., M.S.P.H., FAHA; and Niyati Parekh, Ph.D., FAHA. Authors’ disclosures are listed in the manuscript.
NewsMakers
Loneliness strongly linked to poorer mental health and wellbeing, study finds
Loneliness was found to be linked with worse general health, including experiencing multiple health conditions. Social isolation is associated with lower wellbeing, too.
People who feel lonely are much more likely to experience poorer mental health and lower wellbeing, a collaborative study led by the University of Bristol, Nesta and Amsterdam UMC has found. Loneliness was also found to be linked with worse general health, including experiencing multiple health conditions. Social isolation is associated with lower wellbeing, too.
Loneliness is increasingly recognised as a major public health issue, with growing evidence connecting it to poorer health. However, it is unclear whether loneliness itself contributes to poor health or whether these links are driven by other factors.
The study, in association with the universities of Oxford and Manchester, combined evidence from three different research methods, including observational analysis, sibling comparisons, and Mendelian randomisation, a genetics-based approach, to build a clearer understanding of these relationships.
Using data from the UK Biobank and large-scale genome-wide association studies, the researchers investigated how both loneliness – the quality of a person’s social relationships; and social isolation – the number of social connections, relate to health and wellbeing. The study is published in Nature Communications.
The research team found that loneliness and social isolation are linked to poorer mental health and reduced wellbeing, with loneliness also associated with worse general health. While the study found no clear evidence of effects on specific physical health conditions, these potential impacts cannot be ruled out.
The findings suggest that loneliness, and potentially social isolation, remain important public health issues, particularly because of their links with mental health, wellbeing and overall health.
As loneliness becomes an increasingly important public health challenge, tackling it could bring benefits for both individuals and society.
Dr Zoe Reed, Research Fellow in the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of Bristol, and corresponding author, said: “Our findings suggest that loneliness, and possibly social isolation, are still important public health concerns, especially for mental health and general health. Supporting people who feel lonely or socially isolated could help improve mental health, wellbeing and overall health.”
Lauren Bowes Byatt, Director of Nesta’s healthy life mission, added: “This research underlines that loneliness is likely to have a detrimental impact on our mental health and wellbeing. While this link may seem obvious, the topic has long been understudied. Studies like this can help to bridge this research gap and by understanding how loneliness or social isolation may be contributing to ill-health, we can get closer to new and more effective solutions.”
The researchers suggest more research is needed to understand exactly how loneliness and social isolation affect health and to develop the most effective ways to reduce their impact.
As the study focused on middle-aged and older adults, future studies should explore whether these patterns are similar in younger people. It will also be important to investigate the effects of persistent or long-term loneliness, as the study measured loneliness at a single point in time.
The paper’s findings add to growing evidence that loneliness and social isolation are not just social issues, they are important public health concerns with wide-ranging implications for wellbeing and mental and physical health. The research reinforces the importance of addressing these issues as part of public health policy and practice.
-
Product Showcase3 weeks agoSuperbod Movement goes beyond the stage
-
NewsMakers3 weeks agoLoneliness strongly linked to poorer mental health and wellbeing, study finds
-
NewsMakers3 weeks agoPoor-quality sleep involves different parts of the brain, depending on age
-
NewsMakers3 weeks agoWeight loss drugs could help with binge eating disorder
-
Product Showcase3 weeks agoNew IKEA PS Collection brings playful functionality into your home
-
Product Showcase3 weeks agoFullerton Health celebrates two years of advancing preventive healthcare in PH
-
Product Showcase3 weeks agoCentury Tuna Superbods 2026 announces ‘Superbod Era’ finalists
-
NewsMakers5 days agoFilipinos prioritize independence as legacy for longer lives

