MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4206222061 · doi:10.2196/32373

Exploring Quality Differences in Telemedicine Between Hospital Outpatient Departments and Community Clinics: Cross-sectional Study

2022· article· en· W4206222061 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Noora Alhajri, Mecit Can Emre Simsekler, Buthaina Alfalasi, Mohamed Alhashmi, Hamda Memon, Emma Housser, Abdulhamid Mustafa Abdi, Nahed Balalaa, Maryam Al Ali, Raghda Almaashari, Shammah Al Memari, Farida Al Hosani, Yousif Al Zaabi, Shereena Almazrouei, Hamed Alhashemi

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesKhalifa University of Science, Technology and Research
Mots-clésTelemedicineMedicinePatient satisfactionCross-sectional studyPandemicOutpatient clinicHealth careFamily medicineMedical emergencyCommunity hospitalNursingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine is a care delivery modality that has the potential to broaden the reach and flexibility of health care services. In the United Arab Emirates, telemedicine services are mainly delivered through either integrated hospital outpatient department (OPDs) or community clinics. However, it is unknown if patients' perceptions of, and satisfaction with, telemedicine services differ between these two types of health care systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the differences in patients' perceptions of, and satisfaction with, telemedicine between hospital OPDs and community clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also aimed to identify patient- or visit-related characteristics contributing to patient satisfaction with telemedicine. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study that was conducted at Abu Dhabi health care centers, we invited outpatients aged 18 years or over, who completed a telemedicine visit during the COVID-19 pandemic, to participate in our study. Patients' perceptions of, and satisfaction with, telemedicine regarding the two system types (ie, hospital OPDs and community clinics) were assessed using an online survey that was sent as a link through the SMS system. Regression models were used to describe the association between patient- and visit-related characteristics, as well as the perception of, and satisfaction with, telemedicine services. RESULTS: A total of 515 patients participated in this survey. Patients' satisfaction with telemedicine services was equally high among the settings, with no statistically significant difference between the two setting types (hospital OPDs: 253/343, 73.8%; community clinics: 114/172, 66.3%; P=.19). Video consultation was significantly associated with increased patient satisfaction (odds ratio [OR] 2.57, 95% CI 1.04-6.33; P=.04) and patients' support of the transition to telemedicine use during and after the pandemic (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.18-7.07; P=.02). Patients who used video consultations were more likely to report that telemedicine improved access to health care services (OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.71-8.03; P=.02), reduced waiting times and travel costs (OR 4.94, 95% CI 1.15-21.19; P=.03), addressed patients' needs (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.13-6.11; P=.03), and eased expression of patients' medical concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic (OR 2.19, 95% CI 0.89-5.38; P=.09). Surprisingly, middle-aged patients were two times more likely to be satisfied with telemedicine services (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.09-4.14; P=.03), as compared to any other age group in this study. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that patient satisfaction was unaffected by the health system setting in which patients received the teleconsultations, whether they were at hospitals or community clinics. Video consultation was associated with increased patient satisfaction with telemedicine services. Efforts should be focused on strategic planning for enhanced telemedicine services, video consultation in particular, for both emergent circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and day-to-day health care delivery.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,033
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,830

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,243
Tête enseignante GPT0,463
Écart entre enseignants0,220 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations28
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Medical InformaticsMême sujetTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationTravaux en français237 207