Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40524626›Full record

ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2025

Evolving Regulations in Telemedicine Pilot Project: Insights Into Law, Practice, and Patient Care through International Case Studies.

Jiwon Shinn, Yeryeon Jung, Jeong-Yeon Kim, Seongwoo Seo, Eunseol Lee, Youseok Kim, Min Jung Ko, Hun-Sung Kim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jiwon Shinn *Department of Medical Informatics, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9131-6128
Yeryeon Jung *Division of Healthcare Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4052-375X
Jeong-Yeon KimDivision of Healthcare Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1187-0605
Seongwoo SeoDivision of Healthcare Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8280-7112
Eunseol LeeDivision of Healthcare Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8627-5328
Youseok KimDepartment of Healthcare Management, Graduate School of Public Health, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6032-116X
Min Jung KoDivision of Healthcare Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3599-7173
Hun-Sung KimDepartment of Medical Informatics, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7002-7300

Funding

National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency NECA-A-23-016National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency NECA-A-24-005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The primary focus of this research is the evolving landscape of telemedicine policies and practices across various countries, with particular attention to recent initiatives in South Korea. This study is crucial for understanding the implications of institutionalizing telemedicine, especially following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. It aims to ensure the delivery of quality medical services through remote healthcare systems. The objectives include analyzing changes in international telemedicine policies post-COVID-19, comparing these changes with South Korea's policies, and identifying best practices for the domestic institutionalization of telemedicine. The research examines telemedicine policies and practices in South Korea, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, and Australia. Key variables analyzed are eligibility for telemedicine, types of diseases treated, telemedicine platforms, drug prescriptions, drug delivery, responsibility for telemedicine, and cost. Data were collected from policy documents, legal frameworks, and pilot project outcomes and were analyzed to identify trends, differences, and potential areas for policy development. Telemedicine policies vary significantly among countries, with different approaches to patient eligibility, disease types treated, platforms used, prescription and delivery of drugs, legal responsibilities, and costs. South Korea's telemedicine policy is in its early stage, recently expanding to include all patients with prior face-to-face treatment within six months. The initial hypotheses that telemedicine policies are rapidly evolving and that there is no one-size-fits-all approach were supported. The findings suggest that telemedicine is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires careful consideration of various medical, legal, and technological aspects. South Korea's approach to telemedicine should be customized to its unique healthcare environment, focusing on patient health and alignment with national healthcare priorities. Future research should explore the development of a comprehensive system for telemedicine that addresses patient needs, provider capabilities, and regulatory requirements, with an emphasis on creating a global benchmark for personalized telemedicine.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health PolicyTelemedicineAustraliaCanadaFranceHumansJapanPatient CarePilot ProjectsRepublic of KoreaSARS-CoV-2United KingdomUnited StatesHealthcare DeliveryKoreaPatient-Centered CareTelehealthTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID40524626
PMCPMC12170301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.