ReviewFrontiers in oncology2025
The risks of telehealth in radiation oncology: challenges and mitigation strategies.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 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
The integration of telehealth into radiation oncology represents a significant evolution in healthcare delivery, driven by the potential for enhanced patient accessibility, convenience, and improved multidisciplinary collaboration and operational efficiency. Telehealth modalities support a wide range of activities, from remote consultations and treatment planning discussions to on-treatment checks, toxicity management, and follow-up care. However, the successful adoption of telehealth is predicated upon the effective identification and management of substantial challenges. These include safeguarding sensitive patient data against cybersecurity threats, navigating the inherent limitations of remote clinical assessments, overcoming technological barriers that contribute to the digital divide, adhering to a complex and evolving regulatory and reimbursement environment, maintaining the crucial therapeutic patient-provider relationship, seamlessly integrating telehealth workflows into existing clinical operations, and upholding ethical principles, particularly concerning equitable access and algorithmic bias. While initial concerns about potential risks, such as increased rates of misdiagnosis or reduced patient satisfaction, were prominent during the early phase of rapid adoption, a growing body of recent empirical literature provides valuable insights into the actual impact of telehealth in radiation oncology and the effectiveness of various mitigation strategies. This paper offers a comprehensive and updated review of these multifaceted challenges, analyzing their potential influence on clinical outcomes, healthcare operations, and the patient experience. Drawing upon the latest evidence, it details proactive, evidence-based mitigation strategies - encompassing the strategic implementation of hybrid care models, investments in secure and user-friendly technological infrastructure, the development and adherence to standardized clinical and operational protocols, targeted training for providers and staff, and robust support mechanisms for patients. A structured, continuous risk management framework is presented as an essential component for navigating these complexities. By thoroughly understanding these challenges and actively implementing evidence-informed mitigation approaches, radiation oncology practices can successfully harness the considerable benefits of telehealth while rigorously protecting patient safety, ensuring the delivery of high-quality care, and promoting equitable access to cancer treatment for all individuals.
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.