ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2024
Perspectives on telemedicine across urban, rural and remote areas in the Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence and characteristics of allergic disease among pediatric patients of urban, rural, and remote primary care clinics: A multisite study in the Philippines.Asia Pacific allergy · 2026Article
- Health Education Modalities and Influencing Factors in Rural Philippine Communities: A Mixed-Methods Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study explored attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control of participants across urban, rural and remote settings and examined intention-to-use telemedicine (defined in this study as remote patient-clinician consultations) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional study. 12 focus group discussions were conducted with 60 diverse telemedicine user and non-user participants across 3 study settings. Analysis of responses was done to understand the attitudes, norms and perceived behavioural control of participants. This explored the relationship between the aforementioned factors and intention to use.
resultsBoth users and non-users of telemedicine relayed that the benefits of telemedicine include protection from COVID-19 exposure, decreased out-of-pocket expenses and better work-life balance. Both groups also relayed perceived barriers to telemedicine. Users from the urban site relayed that the lack of preferred physicians discouraged use. Users from the rural and remote sites were concerned about spending on resources (ie, compatible smartphones) to access telemedicine. Non-users from all three sites mentioned that they would not try telemedicine if they felt overwhelmed prior to access. DISCUSSION: First-hand experiences, peer promotions, and maximising resource support instil hope that telemedicine can help people gain more access to healthcare. However, utilisation will remain low if patients feel overwhelmed by the behavioural modifications and material resources needed to access telemedicine. Boosting infrastructure must come with improving confidence and trust among people.
conclusionSustainable access beyond the pandemic requires an understanding of factors that prevent usage. Sufficient investment in infrastructure and other related resources is needed if telemedicine will be used to address inequities in healthcare access, especially in rural and remote areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.