Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38376898›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2024

Acceptance of Telemedicine by Specialists and General Practitioners in Cardiology Care: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Felix Muehlensiepen, Marie Josephine Hoffmann, Jonathan Nübel, Yury Ignatyev, Martin Heinze, Christian Butter, Anja Haase-Fielitz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Felix Muehlensiepen *Brandenburg Medical School (MHB) and Faculty of Health Sciences (FGW) Brandenburg, Neuruppin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8571-7286
Marie Josephine Hoffmann *Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Brandenburg Bernau & Faculty of Health Sciences (FGW) Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School (MHB), Neuruppin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9473-4653
Jonathan NübelDepartment of Cardiology, Heart Center Brandenburg Bernau & Faculty of Health Sciences (FGW) Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School (MHB), Neuruppin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6051-8931
Yury IgnatyevDepartment for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Immanuel Klinik Rüdersdorf, Brandenburg Medical School (MHB), Rüdersdorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3573-7980
Martin HeinzeDepartment for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Immanuel Klinik Rüdersdorf, Brandenburg Medical School (MHB), Rüdersdorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3645-1033
Christian ButterDepartment of Cardiology, Heart Center Brandenburg Bernau & Faculty of Health Sciences (FGW) Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School (MHB), Neuruppin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1604-8960
Anja Haase-FielitzBrandenburg Medical School (MHB) and Faculty of Health Sciences (FGW) Brandenburg, Neuruppin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6881-2249
Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane · DEImmanuel Krankenhaus · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the coming years, telemedicine will play a key role in health care. Especially in rural areas with weak infrastructure, telemedicine could be crucial to providing adequate and personalized medical care.

objectiveWe investigated the acceptance and preferences of telemedicine among cardiologists, internists, and general practitioners. In addition, we aimed to identify knowledge, explore factors that influence the decision to adopt or reject this technology, and create starting points for demand-oriented further research.

methodsWe conducted a web-based survey between May 2021 and February 2022. The 34-item questionnaire covered a wide range of questions regarding knowledge, acceptance, and use of telemedicine in cardiology care. Participants (cardiologists, internists, and general practitioners) were contacted through their professional email addresses, through a QR code published in a regional health journal, and through X (formerly known as Twitter). After exclusion of questionnaires with missed values, multidimensional scaling and k-means clustering were performed. Participants were divided into 3 clusters (C1, C2, and C3) based on their attitudes toward telecardiology. C1 uses telemedicine for personal health and clinical practice; C2 shows reluctance; C3 uses telemedicine mainly clinically.

resultsWe contacted 929 physicians. Of those 12.1% (112/929) completed the questionnaires. Participants were 56% male (54/97), 29% female (28/97), and 2% (2/97) diverse (median age 50 years). About 16% (18/112) of the respondents currently use telemedicine daily, 14.3% (16/112) 3-4 times a week, and 43% (48/112) did not use telemedicine at all. Overall, 35.1% (34/97) rated their knowledge of telemedicine as very good or good. Most of the respondents replied that telemedicine could support cardiology care in monitoring of blood pressure and electrocardiograms (57/97, 58.8%, both), consultation (57/97, 58.8%), and extending follow-up time (59/97, 60.8%). Reported barriers to implementation were mostly administration (26/97, 26.8%), inadequate reimbursement (25/97, 25.8%), and the purchase of technology equipment (23/97, 23.7%). Attitudes toward telemedicine in clinical practice were closely related to the number of patients being treated per annual quarter: C3 (median 1350, IQR 1000-1500) versus C1 (median 750, IQR 300-1200) and C2 (median 500, IQR 105-825). The differences between clinical caseloads of C1-C3 members were significant: C1 versus C2 (P=.03), C1 versus C3 (P=.02), and C2 versus C3 (P<.001). Most participants (87/112, 77.7%) would like to expand telemedicine approaches in the future. In the field of cardiology, the participants reported a high suitability of telemedicine. The willingness to train in telemedicine is high to very high for > 50% of the participants.

conclusionsOur results indicate generally moderate use but positive attitudes toward telemedicine among participating physicians with a higher clinical caseload. The lack of a structural framework seems to be a barrier to the effective implementation of telecardiology.

Indexed as

acceptanceadoptioncardiaccardiologycross sectionalhealth services researchheartpreferencesurveytelecardiologytelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID38376898
PMCPMC10915724
OpenAlexW4389062442

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.