OBJECTIVE: In March-April 2020, during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic lockdown in Denmark, the Danish Health Authorities recommended that, where possible, face-to-face patient-physician consultations be replaced by telephone consultations. The aim of this study was to obtain patients' evaluation of their telemedicine experience. METHODS: Patients who were candidates for telemedicine consultations were recruited based on their urological ailment, necessity for follow-up and comorbidity. New referrals including patients with suspicion of cancer were not candidates for telemedicine. In total, 548 patients had their appointment altered during the period from 13 March to 30 April 2020. Postal questionnaires were sent to 548 patients and 300 (54.7%) replied. RESULTS: In total, 280 patient answered, 224 (80%) men and 56 (20%) women, mean age 69 years (range 18-91) of whom 180 (64.3%) had a benign and 100 (35.7%) a malignant diagnosis. Twenty (6.7%) respondents did not remember their telephone consultation and were therefore excluded. Telephone consultation satisfaction was reported by 230 (85.0%) patients, but they would not prefer video consultations over telephone consultations, and only 102 (36.4%) would prefer telephone consultations in the future. Patients' age, sex and distance to the hospital did not seem to be associated with telephone consultation satisfaction (age p = 0.17; sex p = 0.99; distance p = 0.27, respectively). In total, 226 (80.7%) were medically assessed as being at risk for COVID, but 74 (26.4%) subjectively evaluated themselves as being at risk. CONCLUSIONS: In general (85.0%), urological patients were satisfied with telephone consultations.
OBJECTIVE: In March-April 2020, during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic lockdown in Denmark, the Danish Health Authorities recommended that, where possible, face-to-face patient-physician consultations be replaced by telephone consultations. The aim of this study was to obtain patients' evaluation of their telemedicine experience. METHODS: Patients who were candidates for telemedicine consultations were recruited based on their urological ailment, necessity for follow-up and comorbidity. New referrals including patients with suspicion of cancer were not candidates for telemedicine. In total, 548 patients had their appointment altered during the period from 13 March to 30 April 2020. Postal questionnaires were sent to 548 patients and 300 (54.7%) replied. RESULTS: In total, 280 patient answered, 224 (80%) men and 56 (20%) women, mean age 69 years (range 18-91) of whom 180 (64.3%) had a benign and 100 (35.7%) a malignant diagnosis. Twenty (6.7%) respondents did not remember their telephone consultation and were therefore excluded. Telephone consultation satisfaction was reported by 230 (85.0%) patients, but they would not prefer video consultations over telephone consultations, and only 102 (36.4%) would prefer telephone consultations in the future. Patients' age, sex and distance to the hospital did not seem to be associated with telephone consultation satisfaction (age p = 0.17; sex p = 0.99; distance p = 0.27, respectively). In total, 226 (80.7%) were medically assessed as being at risk for COVID, but 74 (26.4%) subjectively evaluated themselves as being at risk. CONCLUSIONS: In general (85.0%), urological patients were satisfied with telephone consultations.
Authors: Anas Taha; Bara Saad; Bassey Enodien; Marta Bachmann; Daniel M Frey; Stephanie Taha-Mehlitz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Victoria White; Alice Bastable; Ilana Solo; Seleena Sherwell; Sangeetha Thomas; Rob Blum; Javier Torres; Natalie Maxwell-Davis; Kathy Alexander; Amanda Piper Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Hanne Bødtcher; Katrine Vammen Lindblad; Dina Melanie Sørensen; Elizabeth Rosted; Eva Kjeldsted; Helle Gert Christensen; Mads Nordahl Svendsen; Linda Aagaard Thomsen; Susanne Oksbjerg Dalton Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-10-15 Impact factor: 3.359