Public and Research Interest in Telemedicine From 2017 to 2022: Infodemiology Study of Google Trends Data and Bibliometric Analysis of Scientific Literature (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Telemedicine offers a multitude of potential advantages, such as enhanced health care accessibility, cost reduction, and improved patient outcomes. The significance of telemedicine has been underscored by the COVID-19 pandemic, as it plays a crucial role in maintaining uninterrupted care while minimizing the risk of viral exposure. However, the adoption and implementation of telemedicine have been relatively sluggish in certain areas. Assessing the level of interest in telemedicine can provide valuable insights into areas that require enhancement. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the level of public and research interest in telemedicine from 2017 to 2022 and also consider any potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS Google Trends data were retrieved using the search topics “telemedicine” or “e-health” to assess public interest, geographic distribution, and trends through a joinpoint regression analysis. Bibliographic data from Scopus were used to chart publications referencing the terms “telemedicine” or “eHealth” (in the title, abstract, and keywords) in terms of scientific production, key countries, and prominent keywords, as well as collaboration and co-occurrence networks. RESULTS Worldwide, telemedicine generated higher mean public interest (relative search volume=26.3%) compared to eHealth (relative search volume=17.6%). Interest in telemedicine remained stable until January 2020, experienced a sudden surge (monthly percent change=95.7%) peaking in April 2020, followed by a decline (monthly percent change=–22.7%) until August 2020, and then returned to stability. A similar trend was noted in the public interest regarding eHealth. Chile, Australia, Canada, and the United States had the greatest public interest in telemedicine. In these countries, moderate to strong correlations were evident between Google Trends and COVID-19 data (ie, new cases, new deaths, and hospitalized patients). Examining 19,539 original medical articles in the Scopus database unveiled a substantial rise in telemedicine-related publications, showing a total increase of 201.5% from 2017 to 2022 and an average annual growth rate of 24.7%. The most significant surge occurred between 2019 and 2020. Notably, the majority of the publications originated from a single country, with 20.8% involving international coauthorships. As the most productive country, the United States led a cluster that included Canada and Australia as well. European, Asian, and Latin American countries made up the remaining 3 clusters. The co-occurrence network categorized prevalent keywords into 2 clusters, the first cluster primarily focused on applying eHealth, mobile health (mHealth), or digital health to noncommunicable or chronic diseases; the second cluster was centered around the application of telemedicine and telehealth within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS Our analysis of search and bibliographic data over time and across regions allows us to gauge the interest in this topic, offer evidence regarding potential applications, and pinpoint areas for additional research and awareness-raising initiatives.
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 | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.080 | 0.137 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".