Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36123696›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2022

The multiple uses of telemedicine during the pandemic: the evidence from a cross-sectional survey of medical doctors in Brazil.

Mário Scheffer, Alex Cassenote, Maria Teresa Seabra Soares de Britto E Alves, Giuliano Russo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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.

Mário SchefferDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of São, Paulo. Avenida Dr. Arnaldo, 455, 2º andar, sala 2166, São Paulo (, SP, CEP: 01246-903, Brazil.
Alex CassenoteDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of São, Paulo. Avenida Dr. Arnaldo, 455, 2º andar, sala 2166, São Paulo (, SP, CEP: 01246-903, Brazil.
Maria Teresa Seabra Soares de Britto E AlvesProgram in Public Health, Federal University of Maranhão, Rua Barão de Itapary, Nº 155, Centro, São Luís, MA, CEP: 65020-070, Brazil.
Giuliano RussoWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner street, London, E1 2AB, UK. g.russo@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2716-369X

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R022747/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of telemedicine, or the provision of healthcare and communication services through distance-based technologies, has increased substantially since the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. However, it is still unclear what are the innovative features of the widespread use of such modality, its forms of employment and the context in which it is used across pluralist health systems, particularly in low- and middle-income settings. We have sought to provide empirical evidence on the above issues by analysing the responses of medical doctors in a representative cross-sectional survey in two states in Brazil: São Paulo and Maranhão.

methodsWe analysed the responses of 1,183 physicians to a survey on the impact of COVID-19 on their livelihood and working practice. Two independent samples per state were calculated based on a total of 152,511 active medical registries in São Paulo and Maranhão. Proportional stratified sampling was performed and the distributions for gender, age, state and location of address (capital or countryside) were preserved. The survey contained questions on the frequency of physicians' employment of telemedicine services; the specific activities where these were employed, and; the forms in which the pandemic had influenced the adoption or consolidation of this technology. We performed descriptive and univariate analysis based on the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for the qualitative data, and the Mann-Whitney test in the quantitative cases. Data were shown as absolute frequency and proportion with a 95% confidence interval.

resultsIn our sample of physicians, telemedicine was employed as a form of clinical collaboration by most doctors (76.0%, 95 CI 73.6-78.5), but only less than a third of them (30.6%, 95 CI 28.0-33.3) used it as a modality to provide healthcare services. During the pandemic, telemedicine was used predominantly in COVID-19-related areas, particularly for hospital-based in-patient services, and in private clinics and ambulatory settings. Male, younger doctors used it the most. Doctors in São Paulo employed telemedicine more frequently than in Maranhão (p < 0.001), in urban settings more than in rural areas (p < 0.001). Approximately three-quarters of doctors in large hospitals reported using telemedicine services (78.3%, 95 CI 75.9-80.6), followed by doctors working for smaller private clinics (66.4%, 95 CI 63.7-69.1), and by a smaller proportion of primary care doctors (58.4%, 95 CI 55.6-61.2).

conclusionsOur study suggests that telemedicine may have helped ensure and expand the range of communication and healthcare services in low- and middle-income settings during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the modality appears to lend itself to be disproportionally used by doctors working in specific, priviledged sections of pluralistic health systems, and presumably by patients seeking care there. Regulation and incentives will be required to support the use of the technology across health systems in low- and middle-income countries in order to increase access to services for less disadvantaged populations.

Indexed as

COVID-19PhysiciansTelemedicineBrazilCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMalePandemicsDoctors and physiciansHealth in low- and middle-income countriesHealth systemsMedical servicesTelehealthTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID36123696
PMCPMC9483882

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.