Effectiveness of Telehealth in Obstetric and Gynecologic Care: A Systematic Review of Health Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Telehealth applications are growing in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology. Strong scientific analysis and clinical recommendations are necessary for these innovative advancements. The purpose of this study was to conduct a thorough evaluation of how telehealth interventions can enhance obstetric and gynecologic health outcomes. Using pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria, we searched the literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. 968 pertinent research articles were found in these databases, and Endnote software checked them for duplication. Only fifty-two of these articles were deemed relevant after a thorough text examination. Every study that was included had its risk of bias evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Overall, telehealth interventions enhanced breastfeeding and smoking cessation obstetric outcomes. While preserving mother and fetal outcomes, telehealth interventions reduced the requirement for high-risk obstetric monitoring office visits. According to one study, women with gestational hypertension had lower rates of preeclampsia diagnoses. For continued use of injectable and oral contraceptives, telehealth treatments proved successful; one text-based study discovered higher rates of oral contraception after six months. When medication abortion services were provided via telehealth, access to early abortion was enhanced, and clinical outcomes were comparable to those of in-person care. Few studies have indicated the value of telehealth in improving the notification of test results for sexually transmitted infections and in improving the symptoms of urine incontinence with app-based interventions. Early availability of medical abortion services, breastfeeding, perinatal smoking cessation, telehealth therapies, and high-risk obstetrics schedule optimization were all linked to better obstetric outcomes. More carefully planned research is required to look at these and other interventions in order to produce data that can guide choices regarding the integration of more recent telehealth technology into obstetrics and gynecology practices.
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 | 0.019 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".