Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37934574›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2023

Perceptions of and Preferences for Telemedicine Use Since the Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Survey of Patients and Physicians.

Sanae Mazouri-Karker, Robin Lüchinger, Olivia Braillard, Nadia Bajwa, Sophia Achab, Patricia Hudelson, Melissa Dominicé Dao, Noelle Junod Perron

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Surfacing Technology Routines While Studying Videoconferencing Among Older Adults with Cognitive Concerns.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Sanae Mazouri-KarkerE-health and Telemedicine Division, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3754-8742
Robin LüchingerUnit of Development and Research in Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6169-2704
Olivia BraillardPrimary Care Division, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2720-3900
Nadia BajwaUnit of Development and Research in Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-1445-4594
Sophia AchabTreatment Centre ReConnecte, Department of Psychiatry, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3861-3297
Patricia HudelsonDepartment of Primary Care Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2601-7479
Melissa Dominicé DaoDepartment of Primary Care Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-0839-277X
Noelle Junod PerronUnit of Development and Research in Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-9124-8663

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile the use of telemedicine (TLM) increased worldwide during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, little is known about the use and acceptance of TLM post the COVID-19 pandemic.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate patients' and physicians' self-reported use, preferences, and acceptability of different types of TLM after the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey among patients and physicians in Geneva, Switzerland, between September 2021 and January 2022. Patients in waiting rooms of both private and public medical centers and emergency services were invited to answer a web-based questionnaire. Physicians working in private and public settings were invited by email to answer a similar questionnaire. The questionnaires assessed participants' sociodemographics and digital literacy; self-reported use of TLM; as well as preferences and acceptability of TLM for different clinical situations.

resultsA total of 567 patients (309/567, 55% women) and 448 physicians (230/448, 51% women and 225/448, 50% in private practice) responded to the questionnaire. Patients (263/567, 46.5%) and physicians (247/448, 55.2%) generally preferred the phone over other TLM formats and considered it to be acceptable for most medical situations. Email (417/567, 73.6% and 308/448, 68.8%) was acceptable for communicating exam results, and medical certificates (327/567, 67.7% and 297/448, 66.2%) and video (302/567, 53.2% and 288/448, 64.3%) was considered acceptable for psychological support by patients and physicians, respectively. Older age was associated with lower acceptability of video for both patients and physicians (odds ratio [OR] 0.03, 95% CI 0.00-0.33 and OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08-0.66) while previous use of video was positively associated with video acceptability (OR 3.16, 95% CI 1.84-5.43 and OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.91-5.54). Psychiatrists and hospital physicians were more likely to consider video to be acceptable (OR 10.79, 95% CI 3.96-29.30 and OR 3.97, 95% CI 2.23-7.60).

conclusionsDespite the development of video, the acceptability of video remains lower than that of the phone for most health issues or patient requests. There is a need to better define for which patients and in which medical situations video can become safe and efficient.

Indexed as

COVID-19PhysiciansTelemedicineCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalePandemicsacceptabilityacceptanceadoptionattitudecross sectionale-consultationeHealthopinionpatientperceptionperspectivephysicianquestionnaireremote consultationsurveytelehealthtelemedicineusagevideo consultation

Identifiers

PMID37934574
PMCPMC10664018

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.