ArticleJMIR human factors2025
Patients' and Physicians' Experience With and Acceptability of a Telemedicine Cabin: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Telemedicine represents an essential tool with the potential to reduce health costs, thus avoiding patient displacement and improving patient care outcomes, positioning it as a significant social technology. Objective: This study aims to analyze the implementation of a telehealth cabin at BP Hospital (A Beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo), focusing on the evaluation of the experiences of both patients and health care professionals, as well as the acceptability of this tool. Methods: A mixed methods study was conducted with 229 participants, divided into 2 phases. The first phase involved 40 apparently healthy individuals to assess the usability, experience, and satisfaction of this group for the later safe application in the group with clinical complaints. The second phase included 189 participants, with complaints to assess the usability, experience, and satisfaction of patients and doctors. In both phases, participants completed screening questionnaires (to assess the eligibility criteria), a socioeconomic demographic questionnaire before using the cabin, and a questionnaire including the System Usability Scale and the Net Promoter Score (NPS) after using the cabin. Results: The data analysis of the first phase showed high acceptance of the telehealth cabin, which supported the progression to the second phase. In the second phase, a high usability score was observed among participants with clinical complaints (mean System Usability Scale score of 85.97, SD 15.50) and a high favorability rating (NPS score of 9.4). Health care professionals also reported favorable results, with a usability score of 67.8 and an NPS of 8.0. Conclusions: The results of this study reinforce the potential for scaling up this practice based on usability outcomes, and highlight its relevance for the development of public policies aimed at expanding access to quality health care in Brazil. This approach improves the interaction of patients with the health care system, while providing professionals with an extended view of clinical conditions through integrated devices, particularly in areas with limited access to medical care.
Indexed as
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.