Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33156806›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

People's Experiences and Satisfaction With Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Jennifer Mj Isautier, Tessa Copp, Julie Ayre, Erin Cvejic, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, Carys Batcup, Carissa Bonner, Rachael Dodd, Brooke Nickel, Kristen Pickles and 3 more

Abstract 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 119 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

119 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The impact of COVID-19 on the mental health workforce: A rapid review.International journal of mental health nursing · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Introduction of robot-assisted obstetric ultrasound in rural Northern Norway.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

59 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

13 authors.

Jennifer Mj IsautierFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6376-680X
Tessa CoppFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7801-5884
Julie AyreFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5279-5189
Erin CvejicFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6043-6071
Gideon Meyerowitz-KatzPopulation Wellbeing and Environment Research Lab, School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1156-9345
Carys BatcupFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1896-533X
Carissa BonnerFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4797-6460
Rachael DoddFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8080-6359
Brooke NickelFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8100-4278
Kristen PicklesFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1621-3217
Samuel CornellFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4944-7826
Thomas DakinFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4452-1863
Kirsten J McCafferyFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2696-5006

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth has rapidly been adopted to deliver health care services around the world. To date, studies have not compared people's experiences with telehealth services during the pandemic in Australia to their experiences with traditional in-person visits.

objectiveThis study aimed to compare participants' perceptions of telehealth consults to their perceptions of traditional in-person visits and investigate whether people believe that telehealth services would be useful after the pandemic.

methodsA national, cross-sectional, community survey was conducted between June 5 and June 12, 2020 in Australia. In total, 1369 participants who were aged ≥18 years and lived in Australia were recruited via targeted advertisements on social media (ie, Facebook and Instagram). Participants responded to survey questions about their telehealth experience, which included a free-text response option. A generalized linear model was used to estimate the adjusted relative risks of having a poorer telehealth experience than a traditional in-person visit experience. Content analysis was performed to determine the reasons why telehealth experiences were worse than traditional in-person visit experiences.

resultsOf the 596 telehealth users, the majority of respondents (n=369, 61.9%) stated that their telehealth experience was "just as good as" or "better than" their traditional in-person medical appointment experience. On average, respondents perceived that telehealth would be moderately useful to very useful for medical appointments after the COVID-19 pandemic ends (mean 3.67, SD 1.1). Being male (P=.007), having a history of both depression and anxiety (P=.016), and lower patient activation scores (ie, individuals' willingness to take on the role of managing their health/health care) (P=.036) were significantly associated with a poor telehealth experience. In total, 6 overarching themes were identified from free-text responses for why participants' telehealth experiences were poorer than their traditional in-person medical appointment experiences, as follows: communication is not as effective, limitations with technology, issues with obtaining prescriptions and pathology results, reduced confidence in their doctor, additional burden for complex care, and inability to be physically examined.

conclusionsBased on our sample's responses, telehealth appointment experiences were comparable to traditional in-person medical appointment experiences. Telehealth may be worthwhile as a mode of health care delivery while the pandemic continues, and it may continue to be worthwhile after the pandemic.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPersonal SatisfactionSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineYoung AdultAustraliaCOVID-19cross-sectionalexperiencepatient experiencesatisfactionsurveytelehealthtelemedicineusability

Identifiers

PMID33156806
PMCPMC7732356

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.