ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2022
A study in patient satisfaction regarding telemedicine consultations in radiation oncology.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient experience in a radiation therapy department pre- and during the COVID-19 pandemic.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Patient Safety and Satisfaction With Fully Remote Management of Radiation Oncology Care.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- A study in patient satisfaction regarding telemedicine consultations in radiation oncology.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2022Article
- Telemedicine platforms must be leveraged to strengthen rural health systems.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2022Article
- Cardio oncology: Digital innovations, precision medicine and health equity.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTelemedicine consultations can be a cost-effective and convenient method of communication, particularly with patients living in remote areas. Given the dearth of patient-reported satisfaction data with this form of consultation in Radiation Oncology, we surveyed patients to assess this in our department.
methodsThe study recruited patients who had experienced both a Telemedicine consultation and an in-person consultation with the same radiation oncologist at our tertiary centre in South Australia. Eligible patients were identified from the Royal Adelaide Hospital oncology information system. The patient satisfaction questionnaire was sent via registered post with a reply-paid envelope. The questionnaire consisted of 38 questions divided into four major categories, focusing on communication, medical care, privacy/confidentiality and convenience. Results of the survey were tabulated in an excel spreadsheet.
resultsBetween 1 January 2018 and 1 January 2019, 130 eligible patients were identified. One hundred and nine patients were alive and contactable of whom 37 responded (34%). Two surveys were returned incomplete resulting in 35 patient responses available for analysis. The median age was 70 years (range 35-87); 74% were male. There was no statistically significant difference between the satisfaction scores for Telemedicine and in-person consultations with regards to communication, privacy/confidentiality or overall satisfaction. The respondent felt it was more important to be examined when the consultation was conducted in-person and found Telemedicine consultations more convenient in terms of cost and time.
conclusionTelemedicine used in Radiation Oncology is an effective form of consultation that is convenient, provides a similar level of patient satisfaction and maintains patient confidentiality. Telemedicine consultations should therefore be considered for all rural and remote cancer patients where feasible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.