Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39164391›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2024

Closing the gap: addressing telehealth disparities across specialties in the sustained pandemic era.

Saki Amagai, Edward Vonesh, James Adams, Yuan Luo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Digital Health Divides: Telehealth Equity in a Global Context-A Narrative Review with an Israeli Case Study.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Implementation of a Dedicated Intake Team Reduces Time to Massed PTSD Treatment.The journal of behavioral health services & research · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Saki AmagaiDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Edward VoneshDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
James AdamsDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Yuan LuoDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. yuan.luo@northwestern.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0195-7456

Funding

Modeling the Incompleteness and Biases of Health DataR01LM013337 · NLM · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI LUO, YUAN · 2020 to 2023
$1.3M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM013337U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) R01LM013337
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Missed appointments, or no-shows, disrupt healthcare delivery, exacerbating chronic disease management and leading to worse health outcomes. Telehealth has surged as a viable solution to reduce no-shows and improve healthcare accessibility, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, telehealth disparities and its long-term efficacy across various medical specialties remain understudied. To address this, we performed a retrospective analysis of electronic health records from a heterogenous network of hospitals in Illinois, examining telehealth use and no-shows across among 444,752 adult patients with 1,973,098 outpatient encounters across nine specialties during the sustained pandemic phase (i.e., January 1, 2021 to July 1, 2022). Among them, 84,290 (4.27%) were no-shows, and telehealth constituted 202,933 (10.3%) of the total encounters. Telehealth use during the sustained phase varied significantly by specialty type. Overall, telehealth encounters were associated with reduced no-show odds compared to in-person encounters (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.26-0.29). Black and Hispanic patients, as well as those with Medicaid, had higher no-show odds relative to their counterparts, even when using telehealth. Mental health specialty had the highest telehealth usage rate and the highest no-show odds (OR, 2.99; 95% CI, 2.84-3.14) relative to other specialties included in the study. Moreover, specialty type had differential effects on no-shows for telehealth. These results underscore the variability in telehealth use by specialty type and pervasive disparities telehealth use and no-shows. As we move beyond the pandemic, our findings can inform policymakers to tailor policies and incentives to reach different patient groups as well as specialties, with varying needs, to promote equitable telehealth utilization.

Identifiers

PMID39164391
PMCPMC11335954

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.