Telemedicine Practice: Review of the Current Ethical and Legal Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Telemedicine involves medical practice and information and communications technology. It has been proven to be very effective for remote health care, especially in areas with poor provision of health facilities. However, implementation of these technologies is often hampered by various issues. Among these, ethical and legal concerns are some of the more complex and diverse ones. In this study, an analysis of scientific literature was carried out to identify the ethical and legal challenges of telemedicine. Materials and Methods: English literature, published between 2010 and 2019, was searched on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science by using keywords, including “Telemedicine,” “Ethics,” “Malpractice,” “Telemedicine and Ethics,” “Telemedicine and Informed consent,” and “telemedicine and malpractice.” Different types of articles were analyzed, including research articles, review articles, and qualitative studies. The abstracts were evaluated according to the selection criteria, using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale criteria, and the final analysis led to the inclusion of 22 articles. Discussion: From the aforementioned sample, we analyzed elements that may be indicative of the efficacy of telemedicine in an adequate time frame. Ethical aspects such as informed consent, protection data, confidentiality, physician's malpractice, and liability and telemedicine regulations were considered. Conclusions: Our objective was to highlight the current status and identify what still needs to be implemented in telemedicine with respect to ethical and legal standards. Gaps emerged between current legislation, legislators, service providers, different medical services, and most importantly patient interaction with his/her data and the use of that data.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".