ArticleBMJ open2026
Telemedicine implementation in Austrian correctional facilities: a qualitative interview study with prison staff.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAustrian correctional facilities face persistent shortages of on-site physicians challenging the principle of equivalence of care. Consequently, the Ministry of Justice launched a telemedicine (TM) pilot to support primary care in correctional facilities without round-the-clock medical cover. The goal of this study was to evaluate TM alongside its implementation in order to investigate key stakeholders' experiences with TM and its integration into routine medical practice and to assess if and how health technologies such as TM can be used to improve quality of care in underserved facilities long-term.
designWe conducted a qualitative evaluation study with semistructured interviews which were analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING AND
participantsUsing purposive sampling across 20 correctional facilities, we interviewed a total of 48 participants (35 nurses, 3 physicians, 7 facility directors, 3 correctional officers).
resultsTM emerged as a tool to partially mitigate the shortage of physicians. Participants viewed TM as well suited for low-risk prescribing, follow-ups, discussion of test results and administrative tasks, while emergencies and presentations requiring physical examination remained unsuitable for TM according to interviewees' reports. Nurses emerged as central operational actors who scheduled and prepared visits, mediated communication and implemented postconsultation tasks; the resulting workload was experienced as either increased (added coordination work) or reduced (fewer external transfers), depending on context. Overall, TM was valued as a complement rather than a replacement for in-person care. Perceived quality of TM depended on technical reliability, adequate space and-critically-the remote clinician being familiar with facility routines and patients.
conclusionsEffective scaling should include clear clinical use criteria, stable remote clinician assignment, close collaboration with on-site staff and acknowledgement of nursing workload, while maintaining access to in-person assessment for complex or urgent cases, as well as personalised, in-person 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.