ArticleEthics, medicine, and public health2023
Difference in general practice telehealth utilisation associated with birth country during COVID-19 from two Australian states.
Article in Ethics, medicine, and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Telehealth has been an integral part of ensuring continued general practice access during the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether telehealth was similarly adopted across different ethnic, cultural, and linguistic groups in Australia is unknown. In this study, we assessed how telehealth utilisation differed by birth country. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, electronic health record data from 799 general practices across Victoria and New South Wales, Australia between March 2020 to November 2021 were extracted (12,403,592 encounters from 1,307,192 patients). Multivariate generalised estimating equation models were used to assess the likelihood of a telehealth consultation (against face-to-face consultation) by birth country (relative to Australia or New Zealand born patients), education index, and native language (English versus others). Results: Patients born in Southeastern Asia (aOR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.52-0.55), Eastern Asia (aOR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.60-0.66), and India (aOR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.63-0.66) had a lower likelihood of having a telehealth consultation compared to those born in Australia or New Zealand. Northern America, British Isles, and most European countries did not present with a statistically significant difference. Additionally, higher education levels (aOR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.26-1.42) was associated with an increase in the likelihood of a telehealth consultation, while being from a non-English-speaking country was associated with a reduced likelihood (aOR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.81-0.84). Conclusions: This study provides evidence showing differences in telehealth use associated with birth country. Strategies to ensure continued healthcare access for patients, whose native language is not English, such as providing interpreter services for telehealth consultations, would be beneficial. Perspectives: Understanding cultural and linguistic differences may reduce health disparities in telehealth access in Australia and could present an opportunity to promote healthcare access in diverse communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.