Patient and Physician Satisfaction with Telemedicine in Cancer Care in Saskatchewan: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Telemedicine is a useful tool that connects patients to their care team remotely and improves access to medical care for rural residents. This study aimed to determine the telemedicine experience of both rural patients with cancer and their physicians, and to explore factors associated with a positive patient experience. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, cancer patients and physicians in Saskatchewan completed a paper-based survey composed of 32 items or an electronic survey of 18 items, respectively. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess patient satisfaction in relation to various sociodemographic and cancer-related factors. Results: Overall, 25 physicians and 165 patients participated in the study. Among the physicians, 94% were confident in their telemedicine assessment, 58% agreed that telemedicine improved clinical efficiency, and 73% agreed that doctor−patient rapport was unimpaired with telemedicine. Of 165 patients, 61% had used telemedicine for the first time, 81% felt that their needs were met, 83% were satisfied with the quality of their care, and 88% had a positive experience. Overall, 83% patients vs. 45% physicians preferred telemedicine to a face-to-face clinic visit (p = 0.005). On univariate analysis, patients ≥ 65 years old had a greater positive telemedicine experience compared to patients < 65 years old (odds ratio 4.1 [1.2−13.8], p = 0.02). Conclusion: Both patients and physicians have a high rate of positive experiences with telemedicine. However, patients have a higher preference for telemedicine over face-to-face visits compared to physicians. In addition, elderly patients have more positive telemedicine experiences compared to younger patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".