Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35508812›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurology2022

A comparison of telemedicine and in-person neurology visits: what are the factors that patients consider when selecting future visit type?

Carly Olszewski, Sharon Thomson, Kelly Pring, Siobhan Cox, Rebecca Merrill, Emily Fishman, Alexander Ambrosini, Kevin Alexander Soltany, Gabby Bognet, Lauren Strauss and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A Comparison of Patients' and Neurologists' Assessments of their Teleneurology Encounter: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carly OlszewskiWake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Sharon ThomsonWake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Kelly PringWake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Siobhan CoxWake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Rebecca MerrillWake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Emily FishmanWake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Alexander AmbrosiniWake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Kevin Alexander SoltanyWake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Gabby BognetWake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Lauren StraussDepartment of Neurology, Wake Forest Baptist Health, 1 Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, 27104, USA.
Rachel GrahamDepartment of Neurology, Wake Forest Baptist Health, 1 Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, 27104, USA.
Amy GuzikDepartment of Neurology, Wake Forest Baptist Health, 1 Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, 27104, USA.
Roy E StrowdDepartment of Neurology, Wake Forest Baptist Health, 1 Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, 27104, USA. rstrowd@wakehealth.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6651-5267
Wake Forest University · USAtrium Health Wake Forest Baptist · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify factors that patients consider when choosing between future in-person, video, or telephone visits.

backgroundTelemedicine has been rapidly integrated into ambulatory neurology in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsAmbulatory neurology patients at a single center were contacted via telephone to complete: (1) a survey quantifying likelihood of scheduling a future telemedicine visit, and (2) a semi-structured qualitative interview following their visit in March 2021. Data were processed using the principles of thematic analysis.

resultsOf 2493 visits, 39% assented to post-visit feedback; 74% were in-person visits and 13% video and telephone. Patients with in-person visits were less likely than those with video and telephone visits to "definitely" consider a future telemedicine visit (36 vs. 59 and 62%, respectively; p < 0.001). Patients considered five key factors when scheduling future visits: "Pros of Visit Type," "Barriers to Telemedicine," "Situational Context," "Inherent Beliefs," and "Extrinsic Variables." Patients with telemedicine visits considered convenience as a pro, while those with in-person visits cited improved quality of care. Accessibility and user familiarity were considered barriers to telemedicine by patients with in-person and telephone visits, whereas system limitations were prevalent among patients with video visits. Patients agreed that stable conditions can be monitored via telemedicine, whereas physical examination warrants an in-person visit. Telemedicine was inherently considered equivalent to in-person care by patients with telephone visits. Awareness of telemedicine must be improved for patients with in-person visits.

conclusionAcross visit types, patients agree that telemedicine is convenient and effective in many circumstances. Future care delivery models should incorporate the patient perspective to implement hybrid models where telemedicine is an adjunct to in-person visits in ambulatory neurology.

Indexed as

COVID-19NeurologyTelemedicineDelivery of Health CareHumansPandemicsClinical neurologyCOVID-19Practice managementTelehealthTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID35508812
PMCPMC9068349
OpenAlexW4229025264

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.