Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32303097›Full record

ArticleYearbook of medical informatics2020

Ethics in Telehealth: Comparison between Guidelines and Practice-based Experience -the Case for Learning Health Systems.

Craig E Kuziemsky, Inga Hunter, Shashi B Gogia, Sriram Lyenger, Gumindu Kulatunga, Vije Rajput, Vignesh Subbian, Oommen John, Araujo Kleber, Humberto F Mandirola and 5 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Telehealth as a Component of One Health: a Position Paper.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Craig E KuziemskyOffice of Research Services and School of Business, MacEwan University, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Inga HunterSchool of Management, Massey University, New Zealand.
Shashi B GogiaSociety for Administration of Telemedicine and Healthcare Informatics (SATHI), New Delhi, India.
Sriram LyengerUniversity of Arizona College of Medicine, USA.
Gumindu KulatungaPostgraduate Institute of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Vije RajputGeneral Practitioner, Stonydelph Health Centre, Tamworth, UK.
Vignesh SubbianCollege of Engineering, The University of Arizona, USA.
Oommen JohnGeorge Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, New Delhi, India.
Araujo KleberNUTES Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brazil.
Humberto F MandirolaHospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Jose Florez-ArangoTexas A & M Health Sciences Center, USA.
Najeeb Al-ShorbajieHealth Development Association of Jordan, Jordan.
Sushil MeherAll India Institute of Medical Sciences, India.
Jai Ganesh UdayasankaranSri Sathya Sai Central Trust, India.
Arindam BasuSchool of Health Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo understand ethical issues within the tele-health domain, specifically how well established macro level telehealth guidelines map with micro level practitioner perspectives.

methodsWe developed four overarching issues to use as a starting point for developing an ethical framework for telehealth. We then reviewed telemedicine ethics guidelines elaborated by the American Medical Association (AMA), the World Medical Association (WMA), and the telehealth component of the Health Professions council of South Africa (HPCSA). We then compared these guidelines with practitioner perspectives to identify the similarities and differences between them. Finally, we generated suggestions to bridge the gap between ethics guidelines and the micro level use of telehealth.

resultsClear differences emerged between the ethics guidelines and the practitioner perspectives. The main reason for the differences were the different contexts where telehealth was used, for example, variability in international practice and variations in the complexity of patient-provider interactions. Overall, published guidelines largely focus on macro level issues related to technology and maintaining data security in patient-provider interactions while practitioner concern is focused on applying the guidelines to specific micro level contexts.

conclusionsEthics guidelines on telehealth have a macro level focus in contrast to the micro level needs of practitioners. Work is needed to close this gap. We recommend that both telehealth practitioners and ethics guideline developers better understand healthcare systems and adopt a learning health system approach that draws upon different contexts of clinical practice, innovative models of care delivery, emergent data and evidence-based outcomes. This would help develop a clearer set of priorities and guidelines for the ethical conduct of telehealth.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelBioethical IssuesGuidelines as TopicCross-Cultural ComparisonHealth Services for the AgedHumansLearning Health SystemPhysiciansTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID32303097
PMCPMC7442533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.