Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35322405›Full record

Observational studyThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology2022

Telehealth for gynaecology outpatients during the COVID-19 pandemic: Patient and clinician experiences.

Emma Jane Mclaughlin, Lenore Caroline Ellett, Emma Readman, Samantha Mooney

Open access · greenAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emma Jane MclaughlinDepartment of Endosurgery, Mercy Hospital for Women, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0233-2741
Lenore Caroline EllettDepartment of Endosurgery, Mercy Hospital for Women, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Emma ReadmanDepartment of Endosurgery, Mercy Hospital for Women, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Samantha MooneyDepartment of Endosurgery, Mercy Hospital for Women, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5742-9148
Mercy Hospital for Women · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Mercy Health Services Academic Research & Development Committee
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated alterations in provision of health care and how patients access it. Telehealth has replaced traditional face-to-face outpatient clinics in an unprecedented manner. This study aimed to assess overall patient and clinician satisfaction with telehealth consultations, to establish acceptability of telehealth during pandemic and non-pandemic times, and document feedback. MATERIALS AND

methodsA prospective observational study involving women presenting to a general gynaecology outpatient department was performed. Women who attended for consultation between 13 July and 4 September 2020 were invited to participate in a questionnaire following their telehealth appointment. Clinicians consulting in the outpatient department were invited to complete a questionnaire at the end of the eight-week study period. Satisfaction, utility and acceptability data were obtained using visual analogue scales (VAS).

resultsTwenty-six out of 56 (46.4%) clinicians and 124/870 (14.3%) patients completed the questionnaire. Patients who responded were older and more likely to have been born in Australia than women who did not (P = 0.0355 and P = 0.005, respectively). Overall patient satisfaction with telehealth was high (median VAS (interquartile range), 8.6 (5.6-9.8)). More women found telehealth to be acceptable during a pandemic than afterward (8.9 vs 6.6, P < 0.0001). Clinicians were less satisfied with telehealth than patients (7.1 vs 8.6, P = 0.02); however, most would be happy to continue using telehealth in non-pandemic times (7.0 (6.2-9.8)).

conclusionTelehealth consultations allow provision of gynaecological care at a time when reducing risk of infection to patients and staff is paramount. Telehealth gynaecology consultations are efficient and convenient without significant detriment to patient or clinician satisfaction.

Indexed as

COVID-19GynecologyTelemedicineFemaleHumansOutpatientsPandemicsPatient SatisfactionCOVID-19gynaecologyoutpatientsremote consultationtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID35322405
PMCPMC9111195
OpenAlexW4221008134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.