Evidence mapPaperPMID 41001603Full record

ArticleO&G open2024

Telehealth in Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Trials: Qualitative Study of Patient, Researcher, and Clinician Perspectives.

Leslie Andriani, Linda M Saikali, Eion Plenn, Emily Gleason, Megan Grabill, Andrea Bilger, Nathanael C Koelper, Anna Jo B Smith, Katharine A Rendle, Fiona Simpkins and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in O&G open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

11 authors.

Leslie AndrianiDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Penn Medicine, the Perelman School of Medicine, the Mixed Methods Research Lab, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, the Women's Health Clinical Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, and the Department of Family Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Nuvance Health, Danbury Connecticut.
Linda M SaikaliDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Penn Medicine, the Perelman School of Medicine, the Mixed Methods Research Lab, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, the Women's Health Clinical Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, and the Department of Family Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Nuvance Health, Danbury Connecticut.
Eion PlennDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Penn Medicine, the Perelman School of Medicine, the Mixed Methods Research Lab, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, the Women's Health Clinical Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, and the Department of Family Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Nuvance Health, Danbury Connecticut.
Emily GleasonDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Penn Medicine, the Perelman School of Medicine, the Mixed Methods Research Lab, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, the Women's Health Clinical Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, and the Department of Family Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Nuvance Health, Danbury Connecticut.
Megan GrabillDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Penn Medicine, the Perelman School of Medicine, the Mixed Methods Research Lab, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, the Women's Health Clinical Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, and the Department of Family Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Nuvance Health, Danbury Connecticut.
Andrea BilgerDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Penn Medicine, the Perelman School of Medicine, the Mixed Methods Research Lab, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, the Women's Health Clinical Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, and the Department of Family Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Nuvance Health, Danbury Connecticut.
Nathanael C KoelperDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Penn Medicine, the Perelman School of Medicine, the Mixed Methods Research Lab, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, the Women's Health Clinical Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, and the Department of Family Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Nuvance Health, Danbury Connecticut.
Anna Jo B SmithDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Penn Medicine, the Perelman School of Medicine, the Mixed Methods Research Lab, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, the Women's Health Clinical Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, and the Department of Family Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Nuvance Health, Danbury Connecticut.
Katharine A RendleDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Penn Medicine, the Perelman School of Medicine, the Mixed Methods Research Lab, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, the Women's Health Clinical Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, and the Department of Family Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Nuvance Health, Danbury Connecticut.
Fiona SimpkinsDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Penn Medicine, the Perelman School of Medicine, the Mixed Methods Research Lab, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, the Women's Health Clinical Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, and the Department of Family Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Nuvance Health, Danbury Connecticut.
Emily M KoDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Penn Medicine, the Perelman School of Medicine, the Mixed Methods Research Lab, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, the Women's Health Clinical Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, and the Department of Family Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Health Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Nuvance Health, Danbury Connecticut.

Funding

Postdoctoral Training Program in Genomic MedicineT32HG009495 · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · 2025 to 2025
$475k
NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG009495
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe patient, research staff, and clinician perspectives regarding the effects of telehealth and remote clinical trial operations on safety, quality, and experience in gynecologic oncology clinical trials.

methodsThis qualitative study used semistructured interviews conducted from May to June 2022 with purposively sampled clinical trial participants, research staff, and clinicians involved in gynecologic oncology clinical trials with telehealth utilization. Participants described telehealth in clinical trial experiences, including benefits and barriers to receipt and provision of care, satisfaction, and quality. Transcripts were coded and analyzed with a modified content analysis approach based on research objectives and emergent themes. An adapted version of the validated Telehealth Usability Questionnaire was administered to all invited participants.

resultsFive patients, seven clinicians, and five research staff were interviewed. Patients and clinicians reported that telehealth, remote testing, and medication delivery positively affected quality of life by reducing financial burden, wait times, and transportation needs. Interviewees did not report telehealth-related changes in treatment-related adverse effects, referrals for urgent evaluation, or compromise of privacy but expressed concerns about the lack of physical examinations. Patients reported that telehealth increased scheduling burden without negative effects on care quality, counseling comprehension, relationships with trial teams, or satisfaction. Clinicians and research staff reported improved workflows regarding remote consent, sponsor interactions, and documentation but challenges with virtual patient education and off-site testing. Clinicians highlighted disparities for patients with limited technology access and reported institutional and insurance-based telehealth policies as barriers. Survey responses supported qualitative findings.

conclusionDespite notable limitations, patients, research staff, and clinicians recommended continued utilization of telehealth and remote clinical trial operations in clinical trials. Future clinical trial designs should consider telehealth inclusion.

Identifiers

PMID41001603
PMCPMC12456496

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.