Physician’s Perceptions of Telemedicine in HIV Care Provision: A Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Telemedicine, or electronic interactive health care consultation, offers a variety of benefits to both patients and primary care clinicians. However, little is known about the opinions of physicians using these modalities. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine physician perceptions, including challenges, risks, and benefits of the use of telemedicine in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patient care. METHODS: A Web-based, self-administered, anonymous, cross-sectional survey was sent to physicians known to be providing medical care to patients living with HIV in Ontario, Canada. Descriptive statistics and frequencies were used to examine physician perceptions and characteristics of participants. RESULTS: Among the 51 invited participants, 48 (94%) completed the survey. Sixty-two percent (29/47) of respondents reported that they used some form of telemedicine to care for HIV patients in their practice. Of the respondents who identified as having used telemedicine in their practice, telephone (86%, 25/29), email (69%, 20/29), and teleconsultation (24%, 7/29) were listed as frequent modalities used. A significant number of physicians (83%, 38/46) agreed that an obstacle to adopting telemedicine is their perception that this modality does not allow for a comprehensive assessment of their patients' health. In addition, 65% (28/43) of physicians agreed that patients may not feel adequately connected to them as a provider if they used telemedicine. However, 85% (39/46) of respondents believed that telemedicine could improve access and timeliness to care along with increasing the number of times physicians can interact with their patients. CONCLUSIONS: From the perceptions of physicians, telemedicine shows promise in the care of patients living with HIV. More than half of the respondents are already using telemedicine modalities. Whereas many physicians are concerned about their ability to fully assess the health of a patient via telemedicine, most physicians do see a need for it-to reduce patient travel times, reduce exposure to stigma, and improve efficiency and timely access to care. Challenges and risks such as technological gaps, confidentiality, and medicolegal concerns must be addressed for physicians to feel more comfortable using telemedicine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".