MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patterns of telehealth utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic and preferences for post-pandemic telehealth use: A national survey of oncology clinicians.

2021· article· en· W3170350390 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher R. Manz, Nancy N. Baxter, Nefertiti C. duPont, Merry Jennifer Markham, Caitlin Drumheller, Lela Durakovic, Angela Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersConquer Cancer Foundation
KeywordsTelehealthPandemicMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)TelemedicineDescriptive statisticsFamily medicineHealth careNursingMedical emergencyDiseaseInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1580 Background: Rarely used in routine practice pre-pandemic, telehealth utilization for cancer care rose significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Increased familiarity with telehealth has led to calls to continue its use after the pandemic ends. Yet national patterns of oncology telehealth utilization by visit type, preferences for telehealth use post-pandemic and barriers to telehealth for patients with cancer have not been described. Methods: 9,336 survey invitations were emailed to US-based ASCO members who have agreed to receive communications. Survey distribution was equally divided over five US regions, and practice type (e.g., academic, community) was reflective of ASCO membership proportions. The survey was open and data collected from January 4-28, 2021. Non-respondents received two reminder emails at week intervals. Analysis is descriptive. Results: 200 respondents completed the survey (2%). Respondents were 72% medical oncologists, 66% urban, 64% academic-affiliated, and from 42 states. 99% currently offered telehealth. 63% used telehealth for <=30% of all patient visits in the last 30 days; 18% used telehealth for more than half of visits. Telehealth utilization varied by visit type (table). 64% reported that the care delivered in telehealth visits was similar quality to in-person visits (29% worse). Assuming no regulatory or financial barriers to telehealth use after the pandemic, 92% would like to use telehealth for at least some visit types; only 8% prefer not to use telehealth. 20% would like to use telehealth for all visits types, and 64%, 54%, 33% and 17% would like to use telehealth for survivorship, symptom management, evaluation of patients receiving treatment and new patient visits, respectively (multiple selections allowed). Major barriers to telehealth were lack of patient access to technology (reported by 81%), limited patient technological proficiency (80%), language barriers (45%), uncertainty about future reimbursement (41%) and lack of administrative resources to support clinicians (33%). 68% agreed that the barriers increase cancer care disparities. Conclusions: Telehealth utilization was widespread during the COVID pandemic and varied by visit type. Most respondents plan to use telehealth in the future, but report barriers to continued use that worsen disparities.[Table: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.466
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.025 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207