Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32568724›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Telemedicine in Germany During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Multi-Professional National Survey.

Arne Peine, Pia Paffenholz, Lukas Martin, Sandra Dohmen, Gernot Marx, Sven H Loosen

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 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed
13.5field-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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Arne Peine *Department of Intensive Care and Intermediate Care, University Hospital Rheinisch Westfaelische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4163-2402
Pia Paffenholz *Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology, Robot Assisted and Reconstructive Urologic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8209-7795
Lukas MartinDepartment of Intensive Care and Intermediate Care, University Hospital Rheinisch Westfaelische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8650-5090
Sandra DohmenDepartment of Intensive Care and Intermediate Care, University Hospital Rheinisch Westfaelische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9156-3463
Gernot MarxDepartment of Intensive Care and Intermediate Care, University Hospital Rheinisch Westfaelische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0866-4234
Sven H LoosenDepartment of Medicine III, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3447-1161
Westfälische Hochschule · DEDüsseldorf University Hospital · DEUniversity Hospital Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn an effort to contain the effects of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, health care systems worldwide implemented telemedical solutions to overcome staffing, technical, and infrastructural limitations. In Germany, a multitude of telemedical systems are already being used, while new approaches are rapidly being developed in response to the crisis. However, the extent of the current implementation within different health care settings, the user's acceptance and perception, as well as the hindering technical and regulatory obstacles remain unclear.

objectiveThe aim of this paper is to assess the current status quo of the availability and routine use of telemedical solutions, user acceptance, and the subjectively perceived burdens on telemedical approaches. Furthermore, we seek to assess the perception of public information quality among professional groups and their preferred communication channels.

methodsA national online survey was conducted on 14 consecutive days in March and April 2020, and distributed to doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals in the German language.

resultsA total of 2827 medical professionals participated in the study. Doctors accounted for 65.6% (n=1855) of the professionals, 29.5% (n=833) were nursing staff, and 4.9% (n=139) were identified as others such as therapeutic staff. A majority of participants rated the significance of telemedicine within the crisis as high (1065/2730, 39%) or neutral (n=720, 26.4%); however, there were significant differences between doctors and nurses (P=.01) as well as between the stationary sector compared to the ambulatory sector (P<.001). Telemedicine was already in routine use for 19.6% (532/2711) of German health care providers and in partial use for 40.2% (n=1090). Participants working in private practices (239/594, 40.2%) or private clinics (23/59, 39.0%) experienced less regulatory or technical obstacles compared to university hospitals (586/1190, 49.2%). A majority of doctors rated the public information quality on COVID-19 as good (942/1855, 50.8%) or very good (213/1855, 11.5%); nurses rated the quality of public information significantly lower (P<.001). Participant's age negatively correlated with the perception of telemedicine's significance (ρ=-0.23; P<.001).

conclusionsTelemedicine has a broad acceptance among German medical professionals. However, to establish telemedical structures within routine care, technical and regulatory burdens must be overcome.

Indexed as

Health Care SurveysHealth PersonnelPandemicsAdultBetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19FemaleGermanyHumansMalePneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2TelemedicineacceptanceavailabilityburdencoronavirusCOVID-19medical professionalpandemicSARS-CoV-2surveytelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID32568724
PMCPMC7409912
OpenAlexW3035939448

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.