ArticleBMC digital health2025
Article in BMC digital health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Within long-term care (LTC) homes, telehealth use has been found to reduce unnecessary emergency department transfers, support the care needs of rural and underserved communities, and supplement in-person physician care. Despite these benefits, it is not well understood when telehealth is not an appropriate medium for providing physician care to residents with complex health needs. This knowledge gap must be addressed given the recent rise in telehealth use in LTC homes in many health systems following the COVID-19 pandemic, when virtual care use increased in many health care sectors to limit travel and in-person exposure risks, that is expected to be maintained going forward. Methods: This analysis contributes to a broader evaluative study investigating care provider and care recipient experiences and preferences for physician telehealth in LTC homes within the Fraser Health region in British Columbia, Canada. For data collection, semi-structured interviews and focus groups were undertaken with seventy care providers (staff, physicians) and recipients (residents, family caregivers). Using a thematic approach, transcripts were analyzed to find common instances when using telehealth for physician care was seen as not appropriate across participant groups. Results: Three types of patient care activities were identified as not appropriate to be conducted via physician visits using telehealth. First, new patient visits were thought to benefit from an interpersonal and conversational familiarity that could not be supported by telehealth. Second, difficult in-depth conversations that required conversational nuance (e.g., eye contact, supportive body language), such as palliative care planning, were thought to be inappropriate for telehealth appointments. Finally, instances where LTC staff would need to perform hands-on clinical assessments on behalf of physicians who were attending virtually via telehealth were not seen as desirable. Conclusions: This analysis highlights perspectives surrounding when telehealth is not appropriate for providing physician services for residents in LTC based on the preferences and experiences shared by both care recipients and care providers. The findings present an opportunity to develop and implement guidelines on appropriate use of telehealth in LTC to support best care practices.
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.