Understanding Physicians’ Preferences for Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In contrast to the current broad dissemination of telemedicine across medical specialties, previous research focused on the effectiveness of telemedicine in special populations and for behavioral health encounters, demonstrating that both physician and patient factors impact the efficacious use of telemedicine. OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate physician perceptions of the appropriateness of telemedicine for patients attending the primary care practices of a federally qualified health center in New York City. METHODS: We used an anonymous cross-sectional survey including closed- and open-ended questions. We used chi-square to test whether providers from certain specialties were more likely to state they would use telemedicine in the future. We used t tests to compare age between those who would versus would not use telemedicine. We then used logistic regression to test whether age and specialty were both correlated with the desire to use telemedicine in the future. We used thematic content analysis to describe the reasons providers felt they would not want to use telemedicine in the future and to describe the situations for which they felt telemedicine would be appropriate. RESULTS: Of 272 health care providers who were sent the electronic survey, 157 (58%) responded within the 2-week survey time frame. The mean age of providers was 45 (range 28-75) years. Overall, 80% (126/157) stated they would use telemedicine in the future. Compared to the family medicine, internal medicine, behavioral health, dental, and obstetrics and gynecology specialties, providers from pediatrics, med-peds, subspecialties, and surgery (protelemedicine specialties) were more likely to believe telemedicine would be useful post pandemic (61/67 [91%] vs 65/90 [72%]; P<.001). Providers who reported they would use telemedicine in the future were younger (mean age 44, range 42-46 years vs mean age 50, range 46-55 years; P=.048). In the regression analysis, both protelemedicine specialties and age were significantly associated with odds of reporting they would use telemedicine in the future (prospecialties: odds ratio 5.2, 95% CI 1.7-16.2; younger age: odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.08). Providers who did not want to use telemedicine in the future cited concerns about inadequate patient care, lack of physical patient interaction, technology issues, and lack of necessity. Providers who felt telemedicine would be useful cited the following situations: follow-up visits, medication refills, urgent care, patient convenience, and specific conditions such as behavioral health, dermatology visits, and chronic care management. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of health providers in this resource-limited setting in a federally qualified health center believed that telemedicine would be useful for providing care after the pandemic is over.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».