MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4295753359 · doi:10.2196/36525

Public Interest and Accessibility of Telehealth in Japan: Retrospective Analysis Using Google Trends and National Surveillance

2022· article· en· W4295753359 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Takuya Kinoshita, Takehiro Matsumoto, Naota Taura, Nemu Matsuya, Mayumi Nishiguchi, Hozumi Horita, Kazuhiko Nakao

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Public healthTelemedicineChristian ministryMedicineDemographyMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthBusinessGeographyPolitical scienceEconomic growthHealth careNursingSociologyEconomicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recently, the use of telehealth for patient treatment under the COVID-19 pandemic has gained interest around the world. As a result, many infodemiology and infoveillance studies using web-based sources such as Google Trends were reported, focusing on the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although public interest in telehealth has increased in many countries during this time, the long-term interest has remained unknown among people living in Japan. Moreover, various mobile telehealth apps have become available for remote areas in the COVID-19 era, but the accessibility of these apps in epidemic versus nonepidemic regions is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the public interest in telehealth during the first pandemic wave and after the wave in the first part of this study, and the accessibility of medical institutions using telehealth in the epidemic and nonepidemic regions, in the second part. METHODS: We examined and compared the first wave and after the wave with regards to severe cases, number of deaths, relative search volume (RSV) of telehealth and COVID-19, and the correlation between RSV and COVID-19 cases, using open sources such as Google Trends and the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (JMHLW) data. The weekly mean and the week-over-week change rates of RSV and COVID-19 cases were used to examine the correlation coefficients. In the second part, the prevalence of COVID-19 cases, severe cases, number of deaths, and the telehealth accessibility rate were compared between epidemic regions and nonepidemic regions, using the JMHLW data. We also examined the regional correlation between telehealth accessibility and the prevalence of COVID-19 cases. RESULTS: Among the 83 weeks with 5 pandemic waves, the overall mean for the RSV of telehealth and COVID-19 was 11.3 (95% CI 8.0-14.6) and 30.7 (95% CI 27.2-34.2), respectively. The proportion of severe cases (26.54% vs 18.16%; P<.001), deaths (5.33% vs 0.99%; P<.001), RSV of telehealth (mean 33.1, 95% CI 16.2-50.0 vs mean 7.3, 95% CI 6.7-8.0; P<.001), and RSV of COVID-19 (mean 52.1, 95% CI 38.3-65.9 vs mean 26.3, 95% CI 24.4-29.2; P<.001) was significantly higher in the first wave compared to after the wave. In the correlation analysis, the public interest in telehealth was 0.899 in the first wave and -0.300 overall. In Japan, the accessibility of telehealth using mobile apps was significantly higher in epidemic regions compared to nonepidemic regions in both hospitals (3.8% vs 2.0%; P=.004) and general clinics (5.2% vs 3.1%; P<.001). In the regional correlation analysis, telehealth accessibility using mobile apps was 0.497 in hospitals and 0.629 in general clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no long-term correlation between the public interest in telehealth and COVID-19, there was a regional correlation between mobile telehealth app accessibility in Japan, especially for general clinics. We also revealed that epidemic regions had higher mobile telehealth app accessibility. Further studies about the actual use of telehealth and its effect after the COVID-19 pandemic are necessary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation→French-language works237,207→