Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35621285›Full record

ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2022

Perception and satisfaction of patients after telemedicine urology consultations: A matched analysis with physicians' perspective.

Bruno Turcotte, Lynda Bélanger, Anne-Sophie Blais, Annie-Claude Blouin, Stéphane Bolduc, Amélie Bolduc-Mokhtar, Michel Bureau, Yves Caumartin, Jonathan Cloutier, Marie-Pier Deschênes-Rompré and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Virtual medicine in urology: Is it here to stay?Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2023
    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

25 authors.

Bruno TurcotteDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Lynda BélangerOffice of Patient Experience Expertise, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Anne-Sophie BlaisDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Annie-Claude BlouinDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Stéphane BolducDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Amélie Bolduc-MokhtarOffice of Patient Experience Expertise, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Michel BureauDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Yves CaumartinDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Jonathan CloutierDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Marie-Pier Deschênes-RompréDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Thierry DujardinDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Yves FradetDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Noémie GaudreauDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Louis LacombeDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Katherine MooreDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Fannie MorinDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Geneviève NadeauDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Sophie PaquetDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Francis SimardDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
David SimonyanClinical and Evaluative Research Platform, Research Center, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Frédéric SoucyDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Rabi TiguertDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Paul TorenDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Michele LoddeDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Frédéric PouliotDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDuring the first regional COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020, we conducted a study aimed at evaluating completeness of telemedicine consultation in urology. Of 1679 consultations, 67% were considered completely managed by phone. The aim of the present study was to assess patients' experience and satisfaction with telemedicine and to compare them with urologists' perceptions about quality and completeness of the telemedicine consultation.

methodsWe contacted a randomly selected sample of patients (n=356) from our previous study to enquire about their experience. We used a home patient experience questionnaire, inspired by the Patient Experiences Questionnaire for Out-of-Hours Care (PEQOHC) and the Consumer Assessment Health Profile Survey (CAHPS).

resultsOf 356 patients contacted, 315 agreed to complete the questionnaire. Urological consultations were for non-oncological (104), oncological (121), cancer suspicion (41), and pediatric (49) indications. Mean patient satisfaction score after telemedicine consultation was 8.8/10 (median 9/10) and 86.3% of patients rated the quality of the consultation as either excellent (54.6%) or very good (31.7%). Consultations regarding cancer suspicion had the lowest score (8.3/10). Overall, 46.7% of all patients would have preferred an in-person visit outside of the pandemic situation. Among patients whose consultations were rated suboptimal by urologists, almost a third more (31.2%) would have preferred an in-person visit (p=0.03).

conclusionsDespite high reported patient satisfaction rates with telemedicine, it is noteworthy that nearly half of the patients would have preferred an in-person visit. Post-pandemic, it will be important to incorporate telemedicine as an alternative, while retaining and offering in-person visits.

Identifiers

PMID35621285
PMCPMC9565072

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.