ArticleThe Korean journal of internal medicine2026
Analysis of experiences on telemedicine pilot projects from the perspectives of doctors, pharmacists, and patients.
Article in The Korean journal of internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Telemedicine in Korea: bridging the gap between convenience and clinical safety.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThis study is the first to analyze telemedicine pilot project experiences from doctors, pharmacists, and patients with different roles to support sustainable commercialization.
methodsAn online survey targeted individuals (patients, doctors, and pharmacists) who participated in the telemedicine pilot project at least once between June 1, 2023, and July 17, 2024. The survey assessed satisfaction and usage conditions. The online survey conducted between May 2024 and July 2024 included 1,500 patients, 300 doctors, and 100 pharmacists.
resultsDoctors, pharmacists, and patients all expressed their intention to participate actively in telemedicine in the future; however, pharmacists showed lower participation rates than doctors (84.7% vs. 67.0% vs. 91.7%, p < 0.001). The most common reason among doctors was "increasing demands from patients" (44.3%), while for pharmacists, it was "easy management of patients with chronic diseases" (67.0%). This showed a statistically significant difference between groups (p < 0.001). Among patients, 65.0% cited "lack of time and convenience." Notably, both doctors and patients agreed that telemedicine requires more time than current practices, although their perceptions differed significantly (all p < 0.001). Additionally, 24.0% of patients who used telemedicine for "hair loss/beauty" purposes reported treatment times of "≤ 3 minutes" shorter than for other purposes. Regarding telemedicine platforms, 75.0% of doctors and 84.0% of pharmacists reported no prior experience using them.
conclusionAppropriate telemedicine systems require collaboration among doctors, pharmacists, and patients. While most groups expressed positive attitudes and future intentions, significant gaps in experience and understanding must be addressed to ensure successful implementation.
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.