Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33237947›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Three decades of telemedicine in Brazil: Mapping the regulatory framework from 1990 to 2018.

Angélica Baptista Silva, Rondineli Mendes da Silva, Gizele da Rocha Ribeiro, Ana Cristina Carneiro Menezes Guedes, Daniela Lacerda Santos, Carla Cardi Nepomuceno, Rosângela Caetano

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

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

7 authors.

Angélica Baptista SilvaDepartment of Human Rights, Health and Cultural Diversity, Sergio Arouca National School of Public Health, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0292-5106
Rondineli Mendes da SilvaDepartment of Human Rights, Health and Cultural Diversity, Sergio Arouca National School of Public Health, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Gizele da Rocha RibeiroDepartment of Human Rights, Health and Cultural Diversity, Sergio Arouca National School of Public Health, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7797-3474
Ana Cristina Carneiro Menezes GuedesTelehealth Unit, Department of Research and Teaching, Federal Hospital of State Employees, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5370-9908
Daniela Lacerda SantosDepartment of Collective Health, Medical School of Petrópolis, Faculdade Arthur Sá Earp Neto, Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6318-0809
Carla Cardi NepomucenoDepartment of Health Policy, Planning and Administration, Institute of Social Medicine, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-6899-3262
Rosângela CaetanoDepartment of Health Policy, Planning and Administration, Institute of Social Medicine, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study characterized the evolution of Brazilian public telemedicine policy in the Brazilian Unified Health System for 30 years from 1988 to 2019 by analyzing its legal framework. We identified 79 telemedicine-related legislations from the federal government (laws, decrees, and ordinances) and 31 regulations of federal councils of health professionals. Three historical phases were established according to the public policy cycle, and material was classified according to the purpose of the normative documents. The content analysis was based on the advocacy coalition framework model. Of the federal legislations, 8.9% were for the Formulation/Decision-Making phase, 43% for the Organization/Implementation phase, and 48.1% for the Expansion/Maturation phase of telemedicine policy in Brazil. The Federal Council of Medicine was the most active in standardizing telemedicine and was responsible for 21 (67.7%) regulations. The first legislations were passed in 2000; however, the coalitions discussed topics related to telemedicine and created their belief systems from the 1990's. The time cycle which included formulation and decision making for Brazilian telemedicine policy, extended until 2007 with the creation of several technical working groups. The expansion and maturation of telemedicine services began in 2011 with the decentralization of telemedicine policy actions across the country. Telemedicine centers which performed telediagnosis influenced the computerization of primary health care units. We conclude that Brazilian telemedicine field has greatly grown and changed in recent years. However, despite the proliferation of legislations and regulations in the period studied, there is still no fully consolidated process for setting up a wholly defined regulatory framework for telemedicine in Brazil.

Indexed as

BrazilDelivery of Health CareFederal GovernmentHealth PersonnelHealth PolicyHumansPoliticsPrimary Health CarePublic PolicyTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID33237947
PMCPMC7688174

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.