ArticlePalliative care and social practice2026
Healthcare professionals' experiences of telehealth adoption in palliative care: A cross-sectional survey.
Article in Palliative care and social practice, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Research has revealed a dramatic rise in the adoption of telehealth by healthcare professionals (HCPs). Limited evidence exists focusing solely on HCPs' adoption and use of telehealth in palliative care and lacks nuance about when and how telehealth is clinically appropriate. Objective: The aim is to deepen understanding of HCPs' behavioural intention (BI) regarding the adoption and use of telehealth in palliative care, and to examine their current patterns of telehealth use. Methods: Cross-sectional data were collected from HCPs working in palliative care between July 27th and September 22nd, 2023. A probit analysis examined the difference between users and non-users of telehealth in palliative care, while a multiple linear regression assessed the association between a HCPs' BI of using telehealth and Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Facilitating Conditions, and Social Influence. Results: Perceived benefits to clinical performance were associated with increased willingness to adopt telehealth. Workplace culture, experience, opportunity to use telehealth, and peer encouragement were highlighted as important contributors to a supportive environment. However, despite positive BIs, many previous users reported infrequent use in practice, suggesting a gap between intention and routine clinical integration. Conclusion: HCPs recognised the benefits of telehealth, but concerns remained regarding treating and managing physical symptoms in palliative care. Telephone-based services were still primarily used, though hybrid models were recognised as needed at times in some clinical situations. Patterns of use suggested distinct user groups, indicating that telehealth implementation requires tailored training, organisational supports, and clear escalation pathways for transitioning from virtual to in-person care. Addressing these factors may support more sustainable and clinically appropriate telehealth delivery in palliative care, with potential benefits for patient outcomes and experiences.
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.