ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Priority setting of teleoncology services, and their barriers, and facilitators from oncologists and patients perspectives: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer is the second leading cause of death worldwide. Unlike the potential of telemedicine in the follow-up of chronic patients, many patients are still being examined in-person traditionally. This study aimed to prioritize teleoncology services and identify implementation barriers, and facilitators from oncologists' and patients' perspectives.
methodThe research employed a mixed-methods approach, combining open-ended questions and interviews with both patients and oncologists. A total of 63 patients and 13 oncologists participated in the study. The data analysis utilized chi-square tests and descriptive statistics. Additionally, a qualitative content analysis was performed using MAXQDA 20 to analyze the data obtained from the open-ended questions and interviews.
resultAccording to oncologists, the prioritization of teleoncology was described as follows based on several factors such as screening protocols, prevalence rates and complexity of diagnosis: (1) breast/gastrointestinal, (2) respiratory/cervical/prostate/skin, (3) neurology/head and neck, (4) gynecological and genitourinary, (5) endocrine and neuroendocrine, musculoskeletal system, and (6) eye. Ten out of 13 (77%) oncologists identified remote consultation between physicians as their highest priority, while 11 of them (85%) considered follow-up as the second most important. Moreover, 12 oncologists (92%) ranked remote diagnosis as their third priority. The majority of patients (66.7%) expressed a preference for in-person visits. Three key factors influencing the choice of in-person visits for patients were: feeling inadequate care during telemedicine visits, lack of digital knowledge, and being in the active treatment period. For patients, education level and preference of treatment method (in-person versus telemedicine) showed statistically significant association (Value < 0.05).
conclusionTelemedicine was most favorable for teleconsultation between treating physicians and consultants. Lack of insurance cover, limited internet coverage, lack of local guidance, and insufficient continuous education were expressed as the main challenges for teleoncology. Addressing these challenges and prioritizing the needs of specialists are key factors in the promotion of telemedicine.
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.