Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38966011›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2024

Increasing the use of telemedicine: A field experiment.

Maria Patricia González, Carlos Scartascini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Maria Patricia GonzálezDigital Inclusion Benchmarks, World Benchmarking Alliance, Prins Hendrikkade 25, 1012 TM Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Carlos ScartasciniResearch Department, Inter-American Development Bank, 1300 New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20577, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7031-3983

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients are reluctant to use telemedicine health services, compared to its substitute in-person visits. One reason is that telemedicine can be accurately evaluated and compared to its substitute only after the product has been adopted and experienced. As such, an intervention that increases the probability of a first experience can have lasting effects. This article reports the results of a randomized field experiment conducted in collaboration with a health insurance company. During the intervention, half of the households out of 3,469 in the sample received periodic e-mails with information about the available services. It effectively increased the take-up and demand for telemedicine. Within the first 8 months of the experiment, patients assigned to the treatment group were 6 percentage points more likely to have used the service at least once (and had about five times the odds of using telemedicine compared to those in the control group). Eight months after the start of the intervention, the number of virtual consultations by the treatment group was six times larger than that of the control group. These results, even if limited by the sample and context in which the intervention took place, provide additional evidence about how information interventions can increase technological take-up within the health sector and could serve as the stepping stone for evaluating the impact of telemedicine on health outcomes causally.

Indexed as

behavioral biasesfield experimenthealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID38966011
PMCPMC11223656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.