C Kitamura1, L Zurawel-Balaura, R K S Wong. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Video-consultation (VC) is a specialized type of telemedicine that uses technology to provide real-time visual and audio patient assessment at a distance. In the present review, we set out to evaluate whether vc is feasible for the assessment, monitoring, and management of oncology patients. METHODS: A search strategy designed to capture studies that addressed the use of telemedicine to deliver cancer care identified relevant articles in the medline (1966 to September 2008) and PubMed (to 2008) databases. Articles were included if they described studies incorporating video-conferencing between patient and provider for assessment or monitoring,physicians or nurses as the care providers,cancer patients,consultation in real-time, and reporting of 1 or more outcomes. RESULTS: Of the more than three hundred articles retrieved, nineteen articles describing 15 unique patient populations involving 709 patients were inclusded in the analysis. No randomized trials were located. Eight studies included a control group; seven involved a case series. The most commonly reported outcomes were patient satisfaction (ten studies), cost to perform consultation (six studies), patient preference for vc compared with in-person consultation (five studies), provider satisfaction (four studies), and provider convenience (four studies). Of these outcomes, satisfaction on the part of patients and physicians has been positive overall, total costs were comparable to or less than those for in-person consultations, and patients valued having vc as an option for consultation. Outcomes evaluating the effect on clinical care were infrequently reported. CONCLUSIONS: While there is evidence to suggest that vc is both feasible and effective for use in the clinical care of oncology patients, studies are generally small and methodologically weak, with limited power of inference.
BACKGROUND: Video-consultation (VC) is a specialized type of telemedicine that uses technology to provide real-time visual and audio patient assessment at a distance. In the present review, we set out to evaluate whether vc is feasible for the assessment, monitoring, and management of oncology patients. METHODS: A search strategy designed to capture studies that addressed the use of telemedicine to deliver cancer care identified relevant articles in the medline (1966 to September 2008) and PubMed (to 2008) databases. Articles were included if they described studies incorporating video-conferencing between patient and provider for assessment or monitoring,physicians or nurses as the care providers,cancerpatients,consultation in real-time, and reporting of 1 or more outcomes. RESULTS: Of the more than three hundred articles retrieved, nineteen articles describing 15 unique patient populations involving 709 patients were inclusded in the analysis. No randomized trials were located. Eight studies included a control group; seven involved a case series. The most commonly reported outcomes were patient satisfaction (ten studies), cost to perform consultation (six studies), patient preference for vc compared with in-person consultation (five studies), provider satisfaction (four studies), and provider convenience (four studies). Of these outcomes, satisfaction on the part of patients and physicians has been positive overall, total costs were comparable to or less than those for in-person consultations, and patients valued having vc as an option for consultation. Outcomes evaluating the effect on clinical care were infrequently reported. CONCLUSIONS: While there is evidence to suggest that vc is both feasible and effective for use in the clinical care of oncology patients, studies are generally small and methodologically weak, with limited power of inference.
Entities:
Keywords:
Telemedicine; remote consultation; teleconsultation; video consultation
Authors: Gary C Doolittle; Arthur R Williams; Ashley Spaulding; Ryan J Spaulding; David J Cook Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.184
Authors: Jan Norum; Øyvind S Bruland; Oddvar Spanne; Trine Bergmo; Tor Green; Dag R Olsen; Jan H Olsen; Elisabeth E Sjåeng; Tatiana Burkow Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2005 Impact factor: 6.184
Authors: D Andrew Loblaw; Andrea Bezjak; P Mony Singh; Andrew Gotowiec; David Joubert; Kenneth Mah; Gerald M Devins Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Susan Kay Bohnenkamp; Pat McDonald; Ana Maria Lopez; Elizabeth Krupinski; Ann Blackett Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2004-09-17 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: A Brédart; V Mignot; A Rousseau; S Dolbeault; N Beauloye; V Adam; C Elie; I Léonard; B Asselain; T Conroy Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2004-08
Authors: Tom Donnem; Bente Ervik; Kathrine Magnussen; Sigve Andersen; Doris Pastow; Sissel Andreassen; Tone Nørstad; Nina Helbekkmo; Roy M Bremnes; Tone Nordoy Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sharon M Watanabe; Alysa Fairchild; Edith Pituskin; Patricia Borgersen; John Hanson; Konrad Fassbender Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-11-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Elad Neeman; Liisa Lyon; Hongxin Sun; Carol Conell; Mary Reed; Deepika Kumar; Tatjana Kolevska; Dinesh Kotak; Tilak Sundaresan; Raymond Liu Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2022-03
Authors: Bryan A Johnson; Bruce R Lindgren; Anne H Blaes; Helen M Parsons; Christopher J LaRocca; Ronda Farah; Jane Yuet Ching Hui Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-07-17 Impact factor: 5.344