Trade-offs between Accessibility and Practicality in Global Telemedicine: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Telemedicine is increasingly vital in healthcare, offering remote consultations via message-based and video call-based platforms. These methods improve healthcare accessibility, particularly when in-person visits are limited. Telemedicine is increasingly vital in healthcare, offering remote consultations via message-based and video call-based platforms. These methods improve healthcare accessibility, particularly when in-person visits are limited. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in ScienceDirect, PubMed, and up to August 2024. Studies evaluating the accessibility and practicality of global telemedicine were evaluated. From initial 439 records, 19 studies were finally in this systematic review. Studies were reviewed thoroughly with quality appraisal using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale, in which those rated for high quality studies were included. Results: Most studies (74%) were from high-income countries, notably the United States (26%) and Denmark (11%). Observational studies dominated (95%), focusing on follow-up consultations (47%) and diagnostic services (32%), particularly in general care (32%), neurology (11%), and surgery (5%). Research peaked in 2022 (32%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Common platforms included WhatsApp, AnyDesk, and QliqSOFT. Accessibility was the primary focus in 53% of studies, while 47% addressed feasibility. Challenges like technological barriers and privacy concerns were particularly noted in lower-income regions. Conclusion: Telemedicine has enhanced healthcare accessibility and demonstrated feasibility. However, technological limitations and remote consultation challenges persist, particularly in lower-income regions. Continued research is needed to optimize telemedicine and equitable access.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".