Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35461212›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2022

Use of telemedicine in the outpatient sector during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey of German physicians.

Vera Knörr, Lorena Dini, Sophie Gunkel, Jan Hoffmann, Laura Mause, Tim Ohnhäuser, Arno Stöcker, Nadine Scholten

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Attitudes of dermatological patients towards digital health interventions: a cross-sectional survey and cluster analysis.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026
    Article
  5. Virtual Care and Compassion for Migrants and Refugees: A Scoping Review.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vera KnörrInstitute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences, Faculty of Medicine at the University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Lorena DiniInstitute of General Practice, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Sophie GunkelInstitute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences, Faculty of Medicine at the University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Jan HoffmannInstitute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences, Faculty of Medicine at the University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Laura MauseInstitute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences, Faculty of Medicine at the University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Tim OhnhäuserInstitute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences, Faculty of Medicine at the University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Arno StöckerInstitute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences, Faculty of Medicine at the University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Nadine ScholtenInstitute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences, Faculty of Medicine at the University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. nadine.scholten@uk-koeln.de.
University of Cologne · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, administrative barriers to the use of telemedicine have been reduced in Germany. The study focused on the analysis of use and assessment of telemedicine by physicians working in the outpatient sector, considering the perspective of different disciplines during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.

methodsThe anonymous cross-sectional online survey within the study COVID-GAMS was conducted from 16 November 2020 to 1 January 2021. General practitioners; cardiologists; gastroenterologists; paediatricians; gynaecologists; ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialists were randomly selected and invited to participate in the survey. At the same time, open recruitment to the online survey was conducted via the professional societies. Descriptive and regression analyses were performed based on the data of 1521 outpatient responding physicians.

resultsThe use of telephone and video consultation increased during the pandemic. Regarding the frequency of use, physicians already using telephone/video consultations in March/April 2020 report an increase in such services. General medicine was associated with an increased use of telephone and video consultations than cardiology, gynaecology or ENT, and in the case of telephone consultations also compared to paediatrics. General practitioners assessed the subjective usefulness higher than gynaecology and ENT. And the self-reported proportion of patients receiving telemedical care was higher correlated with general medicine than all other disciplines. The location of the practice (rural vs. urban), type of practice (individual vs. group) and gender (male vs. female) were also shown to be significant influencing factors on the variables mentioned above. Barriers reported by physicians not using telemedicine were the lack of equivalence to face-to-face contact and perceived low demand from patients.

conclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to a significant increase in the use of telemedicine, to varying degrees in the different specialities. Individual and structural factors lead to a reduced use of telemedicine and there are physician's and patient's barriers that have prevented telephone and video consultations from gaining acceptance by physicians. All these factors must be addressed if telemedicine procedures are to be implemented widely.

Indexed as

COVID-19General PractitionersTelemedicineChildCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleOutpatientsPandemicsSARS-CoV-2COVID-19General medicinePandemicsTelemedicineTelephone consultationVideo consultation

Identifiers

PMID35461212
PMCPMC9034069
OpenAlexW4224443403

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.