Evidence mapPaperPMID 38864328Full record

ArticlePM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation2024

Telemedicine impact on patient disparities and physician practice patterns in cancer rehabilitation: A multicenter retrospective study.

David Leong, Amy Ng, Philip Chang, Jasmine Zheng, Richard Wilson, Matthew Edwin Chen, Mary Vargo

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

David LeongDepartment of PM&R, Case Western Reserve University/MetroHealth Rehabilitation Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Amy NgDepartment of Palliative Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7555-1745
Philip ChangDepartment of PM&R, Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1194-5440
Jasmine ZhengDepartment of PM&R, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Richard WilsonDepartment of PM&R, Case Western Reserve University/MetroHealth Rehabilitation Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0334-2455
Matthew Edwin ChenDepartment of PM&R, Case Western Reserve University/MetroHealth Rehabilitation Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0009-0002-3532-7620
Mary VargoDepartment of PM&R, Case Western Reserve University/MetroHealth Rehabilitation Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6286-6876

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the impact of telemedicine on demographic and practice patterns between outpatients receiving virtual versus in-person cancer rehabilitation physiatry care.

designMulticenter retrospective study.

settingOutpatient cancer rehabilitation physiatry clinics at four academic medical centers in the United States. PATIENTS: Patients with cancer diagnoses or history of cancer diagnosis.

interventionsCancer rehabilitation physiatry encounters.

main outcome measuresVisit mode (in-person, telemedicine); disparities variables (age, race, and gender) by visit mode, and practice interventions (imaging, medications, procedures, other orders, and orders of any type) by visit mode.

resultsAmong a total of 7004 encounters, 2687 unique patients were found. In-person participants were significantly older than the average telemedicine participant (mean 62.9 vs. 60.7 years; p < .001). A race effect was seen (p = .037) with individuals reporting as Asian or other being more likely to have telemedicine encounters. No gender disparities were seen. Using a random visit analysis model to compare populations receiving in-person versus telemedicine care, a slight majority (53%) of follow-up visits were via telemedicine, versus 40% of new patient visits (p < .001). No significant differences were seen in medication prescribing frequency (38.9% telemedicine vs. 36.7% in-person, adjusted relative risk [RR]: 0.988, confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-1.34; p = .988) or imaging frequency (2.4% telemedicine vs. 7.6%; adjusted RR: 0.784, CI: 0.44-1.39; p = .408) between telemedicine versus in-person visit types. Other orders were significantly less likely to be placed during telemedicine than in-person visits (19.9% telemedicine vs. 28.6% in-person; adjusted RR: 0.623, CI: 0.45-0.86, p = .004). Order(s) of any type were placed in 54% of visits (52% telemedicine vs. 56% in-person; adjusted RR: 0.92 for telemedicine, CI: 0.83-1.01, p = .082).

conclusionsTelemedicine has been integrated into cancer rehabilitation physiatry practices and appears to be conducive for placing many types of orders, especially medications. Age was found to be the only major demographic difference between in-person and telehealth patients.

Indexed as

Healthcare DisparitiesNeoplasmsPractice Patterns, Physicians'TelemedicineAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID38864328
PMCPMC11626559

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.