ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2024
Patient Satisfaction With Telemedicine Among Vulnerable Populations in an Urban Ambulatory Setting.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Telemedicine-Supported Intervention Versus Standard Care for Managing Cardiovascular Risk Factors in a Socially Deprived Urban Population: A Prospective Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Efficacy of Telehealth Versus In-Person Management Delivery in Adult Patients with Obesity.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare patient satisfaction between telemedicine and in-person visits for historically vulnerable groups at risk of worse experiences with telemedicine. Patients and Methods: Individuals seen at Mount Sinai Beth Israel Department of Medicine ambulatory practices from April 23, 2020, to March 7, 2023, who completed a post-video or in-person appointment survey. Primary outcomes were: satisfaction with ability to get appointments, quality of time with doctor, explanations from care team, and likelihood to recommend practice. Patients were subdivided by age, gender, English proficiency, and clinician type. Results: Among 8948 in-person and 1101 telemedicine visits, telemedicine scored lower in how the clinical team explained care to patients in the first year, but differences diminished thereafter. Within subgroups, those who were older than 65 years, non-English speakers, and seen by a faculty physician had a lower satisfaction with telemedicine that improved after the first year. Lack of English proficiency was a predictor of lower satisfaction in both types of visits, whereas older age and faculty physician were predictors of higher in-person visit satisfaction, and medicine subspecialties were linked to better telehealth visit satisfaction. Conclusion: These findings suggest improved patient satisfaction with time after the initial COVID-19 expansion, both broadly and within subgroups, but overall differences between in-person and telehealth visits do not appear to be clinically significant. There appear to be differences among certain populations that warrant further study and may require targeted intervention to maintain quality of care.
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.