Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32463377›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Telehealth in the Context of COVID-19: Changing Perspectives in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Malcolm Fisk, Anne Livingstone, Sabrina Winona Pit

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 230 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
230citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
73.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

230 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 516 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. The Development of Telemedicine and eHealth in Surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Videoconferencing to deliver genetics services: a systematic review of telegenetics in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

170 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Malcolm FiskDe Montfort University, Leicester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1602-8393
Anne LivingstoneGlobal Community Resourcing, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9559-4248
Sabrina Winona PitUniversity Centre for Rural Health, School of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Lismore, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2410-0703
De Montfort University · GBThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOn March 12, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak a pandemic. On that date, there were 134,576 reported cases and 4981 deaths worldwide. By March 26, 2020, just 2 weeks later, reported cases had increased four-fold to 531,865, and deaths increased five-fold to 24,073. Older people are both major users of telehealth services and are more likely to die as a result of COVID-19.

objectiveThis paper examines the extent that Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, during the 2 weeks following the pandemic announcement, sought to promote telehealth as a tool that could help identify COVID-19 among older people who may live alone, be frail, or be self-isolating, and give support to or facilitate the treatment of people who are or may be infected.

methodsThis paper reports, for the 2-week period previously mentioned and immediately prior, on activities and initiatives in the three countries taken by governments or their agencies (at national or state levels) together with publications or guidance issued by professional, trade, and charitable bodies. Different sources of information are drawn upon that point to the perceived likely benefits of telehealth in fighting the pandemic. It is not the purpose of this paper to draw together or analyze information that reflects growing knowledge about COVID-19, except where telehealth is seen as a component.

resultsThe picture that emerges for the three countries, based on the sources identified, shows a number of differences. These differences center on the nature of their health services, the extent of attention given to older people (and the circumstances that can relate to them), the different geographies (notably concerned with rurality), and the changes to funding frameworks that could impact these. Common to all three countries is the value attributed to maintaining quality safeguards in the wider context of their health services but where such services are noted as sometimes having precluded significant telehealth use.

conclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic is forcing changes and may help to establish telehealth more firmly in its aftermath. Some of the changes may not be long-lasting. However, the momentum is such that telehealth will almost certainly find a stronger place within health service frameworks for each of the three countries and is likely to have increased acceptance among both patients and health care providers.

Indexed as

AgedAustraliaCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Disease OutbreaksHumansPandemicsPneumonia, ViralTelemedicineUnited KingdomUnited Statesaged careCOVID-19innovationolder peoplepandemicpublic healthresource allocationSARS-CoV-2telehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID32463377
PMCPMC7286230
OpenAlexW3030637260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.