Satisfaction With Telehealth Services Compared With Nontelehealth Services Among Pediatric Patients and Their Caregivers: Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Telehealth refers to the use of technology to deliver health care remotely. The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an increase in telehealth services. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to review satisfaction with pediatric care in studies that had at least one group of pediatric patients and their caregivers receiving telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic and at least one comparison group of those receiving nontelehealth services. METHODS: We searched for peer-reviewed studies published in the English language that compared the satisfaction with pediatric care between pediatric patients and their caregivers receiving telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic and those receiving nontelehealth services. Owing to stay-at-home orders, studies with comparison groups for nontelehealth services that took place either before or during the pandemic were eligible. We searched the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases on January 5, 2023. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A total of 2 reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts before reviewing the full text of the remaining articles. The following information was extracted from each eligible study: country, participant characteristics by comparison group, study design, telehealth approach, measurement tools to assess satisfaction, and findings by comparison group. RESULTS: All 14 eligible studies assessed satisfaction among caregivers and pediatric patients participating in video or telephone visits during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with those having in-person appointments either before or during the pandemic. In 5 of the 14 studies, a comparison of nontelehealth services took place before the pandemic, and in the remaining 9 investigations, nontelehealth services took place during the pandemic. A total of 13 studies were observational investigations with different designs, and 1 study was a quasi-experimental intervention with 3 comparison groups for video, in-person, and hybrid visits. In 9 of the 14 studies, satisfaction with telehealth services was higher than during in-person visits. Caregivers were satisfied with video visits for the ease of use and reduced need for transportation. Reasons caregivers were not satisfied with remote care included limited personal interaction with the provider, technological challenges, and a lack of physical examination. Those participating in nontelehealth services expressed that in-person interactions promoted treatment adherence. Only 1 study assessed satisfaction where adolescent patients completed their own surveys; a higher percentage of adolescents using telehealth services reported effective communication with the provider compared with patients using in-person visits. CONCLUSIONS: In most studies, telehealth services received more favorable or comparable satisfaction ratings than in-person visits. Needed improvements in telehealth services included strategies to address technological challenges and develop better rapport among the patient, caregiver, and medical provider. Interventions may investigate the influence of telehealth services on access to and quality of care.
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 | 0.013 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".