Bridging Gaps in Telemedicine Education in Romania to Support Future Health Care: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Telemedicine is a key element of modern health care, providing remote medical consultations and bridging the gap between patients and health care providers. Despite legislative advancements and pilot programs, the integration of telemedicine education in Romania remains limited. Addressing these educational gaps is essential for preparing current and future medical professionals to effectively use telemedicine technologies. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the current state of telemedicine education for medical professionals in Romania, focusing on the integration of diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities into medical curricula, identifying the challenges and opportunities, and providing recommendations for improving telemedicine education. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Peer-reviewed articles from 2019 to 2023 were identified using databases such as PubMed and Scopus. Additional gray literature was reviewed to provide a comprehensive understanding of telemedicine education in Romania. Data were thematically analyzed to extract key findings and recommendations. Results: The review identified significant progress in the legislative and infrastructural aspects of telemedicine in Romania, but highlighted gaps in integrating telemedicine education into curricula for medical professionals and other health care practitioners directly involved in telemedicine practices. While some universities have included telemedicine components, dedicated telemedicine courses and hands-on training remain insufficient. Barriers include a lack of infrastructure, digital literacy, and practical exposure to telemedicine technologies. Conclusions: For telemedicine to be effectively integrated into Romania's health care system, medical education must be adapted to include comprehensive telemedicine training. Recommendations include enhancing digital literacy, fostering public-private partnerships, and incorporating telemedicine into undergraduate and continuous professional education programs. These efforts are essential for improving healthcare access and quality through telemedicine.
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 | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".