1932

Abstract

Over the past 20 years, the use of telemedicine has increased exponentially. Its fundamental aim is to improve access to care. In this review, we assess the extent to which telemedicine has fulfilled this promise across medical domains. Additionally, we assess whether telemedicine has improved related health outcomes. Finally, we determine who has benefited from this novel form of health care delivery. A review of the literature indicates that () telemedicine has improved access to care for a wide range of clinical conditions ranging from stroke to pregnancy; () telemedicine in select circumstances has demonstrated improved health outcomes; and () telemedicine has addressed geographical, but less so social, barriers to care. For telemedicine to fulfill its promise, additional evidence needs to be gathered on health outcomes and cost savings, the digital divide needs to be bridged, and policy changes that support telemedicine reimbursement need to be enacted.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090519-093711
2021-04-01
2024-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/publhealth/42/1/annurev-publhealth-090519-093711.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090519-093711&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    AAMC (Assoc. Am. Med. Coll.) 2019. The complexities of physician supply and demand: projections from 2017 to 2032 Rep., AAMC Washington, DC: https://www.aamc.org/system/files/2020-06/stratcomm-aamc-physician-workforce-projections-june-2020.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Abraham WT, Adamson PB, Bourge RC, Aaron MF, Costanzo MR et al. 2011. Wireless pulmonary artery haemodynamic monitoring in chronic heart failure: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 377:9766658–66
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Alaboudi A, Atkins A, Sharp B, Balkhair A, Alzahrani M, Sunbul T 2016. Barriers and challenges in adopting Saudi telemedicine network: the perceptions of decision makers of healthcare facilities in Saudi Arabia. J. Infect. Public Health 9:6725–33
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Antoniotti NM, Drude KP, Rowe N 2014. Private payer telehealth reimbursement in the United States. Telemed. J. E Health 20:6539–43
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Barnason S, Zimmerman L, Schulz P, Pullen C, Schuelke S 2019. Weight management telehealth intervention for overweight and obese rural cardiac rehabilitation participants: a randomised trial. J. Clin. Nurs. 28:9–101808–18
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Barnett ML, Ray KN, Souza J, Mehrotra A 2018. Trends in telemedicine use in a large commercially insured population, 2005–2017. JAMA 320:202147–49
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Bashshur RL, Howell JD, Krupinski EA, Harms KM, Bashshur N, Doarn CR 2016. The empirical foundations of telemedicine interventions in primary care. Telemed. J. E Health 22:5342–75
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Benjamin EJ, Muntner P, Alonso A, Bittencourt M, Callaway CW et al. 2019. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2019 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 139:10e56–528
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Brundisini F, Giacomini M, Dejean D, Vanstone M, Winsor S, Smith A 2013. Chronic disease patients' experiences with accessing health care in rural and remote areas: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. Ont. Health Technol. Assess. Ser. 13:151–33
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Burke BL, Hall RW. 2015. Telemedicine: pediatric applications. Pediatrics 136:1e293–308
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Burns CL, Kularatna S, Ward EC, Hill AJ, Byrnes J, Kenny LM 2017. Cost analysis of a speech pathology synchronous telepractice service for patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck 39:122470–80
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Butler Tobah YS, LeBlanc A, Branda ME, Inselman JW, Morris MA et al. 2019. Randomized comparison of a reduced-visit prenatal care model enhanced with remote monitoring. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 221:638.e1–e8
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Buvik A, Bergmo TS, Bugge E, Smaabrekke A, Wilsgaard T, Olsen JA 2019. Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in remote orthopedic consultations: randomized controlled trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 21:2e11330
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Castaneda P, Ellimoottil C. 2019. Current use of telehealth in urology: a review. World J. Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02882-9
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    CDC (Cent. Dis. Control Prev.) 2017. National diabetes statistics report: estimates of diabetes and the burden in the United States Rep., Natl. Cent. Chronic Dis. Prev. Health Promot Atlanta: https://dev.diabetes.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/cdc-statistics-report-2017.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Cent. Connect. Health Policy 2019. Private payer reimbursement for telemedicine. Chiron https://chironhealth.com/telemedicine/reimbursement/private-payer/
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Cent. Connect. Health Policy 2019. Telehealth and Medicare. Chiron https://chironhealth.com/telemedicine/reimbursement/medicare/
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Chalouhi N, Dressler JA, Kunkel ESI, Dalyai R, Jabbour P et al. 2013. Intravenous tissue plasminogen activator administration in community hospitals facilitated by telestroke service. Neurosurgery 73:4667–72
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Champagne-Langabeer T, Langabeer JR, Roberts KE, Gross JS, Gieisberg GR et al. 2019. Telehealth impact on primary care related ambulance transports. Prehosp. Emerg. Care 23:5712–17
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Cherney LR, van Vuuren S 2012. Telerehabilitation, virtual therapists, and acquired neurologic speech and language disorders. Semin. Speech Lang. 33:3243–57
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Chumbler NR, Quigley P, Li X, Morey M, Rose D et al. 2012. Effects of telerehabilitation on physical function and disability for stroke patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Stroke 43:82168–74
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    CMS (Cent. Medicare Medicaid Serv.) 2020. Medicare telemedicine health care provider fact sheet Fact sheet, CMS Baltimore, MD: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/medicare-telemedicine-health-care-provider-fact-sheet
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Comín-Colet J, Enjuanes C, Verdú-Rotellar JM, Linas A, Ruiz-Rodriguez P et al. 2016. Impact on clinical events and healthcare costs of adding telemedicine to multidisciplinary disease management programmes for heart failure: results of a randomized controlled trial. J. Telemed. Telecare 22:5282–95
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Cuneo BF, Olson CA, Haxel C, Howley L, Gagnon A et al. 2019. Risk stratification of fetal cardiac anomalies in an underserved population using telecardiology. Obstet. Gynecol. 134:51096–103
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    De la Torre-Díez I, López-Coronado M, Vaca C, Saez Aguado J, de Castro C 2015. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies of telemedicine, electronic, and mobile health systems in the literature: a systematic review. Telemed. J. E Health 21:281–85
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Demeestere J, Sewell C, Rudd J, Ang T, Jordan L et al. 2017. The establishment of a telestroke service using multimodal CT imaging decision assistance: “turning on the fog lights.”. J. Clin. Neurosci. 37:1–5
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Dorsey ER, Glidden AM, Holloway MR, Birbeck GL, Schwamm LH 2018. Teleneurology and mobile technologies: the future of neurological care. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 14:5285–97
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Dorsey ER, Topol EJ. 2016. State of telehealth. N. Engl. J. Med. 375:14154–61
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Doshi R, Aseltine R, Sabina A, Graham G 2017. Interventions to improve management of chronic conditions among racial and ethnic minorities. J. Racial Ethn. Health Disparities 4:61033–41
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Drake C, Zhang Y, Chaiyachati KH, Polsky D 2019. The limitations of poor broadband internet access for telemedicine use in rural America: an observational study. Ann. Intern. Med. 171:5382–84
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Eggebrecht L, Ludolph P, Göbel S, Schinzel H, Nagler M et al. 2019. Cost-effectiveness of a telemedicine-based coagulation service versus routine medical care for the management of patients receiving vitamin K-antagonists—results from the thrombEVAL study. Hamostaseologie 39:S 01S1–S92
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S 2010. Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int. J. Med. Inform. 79:11736–71
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Ellimoottil C, Skolarus T, Gettman M, Boxer R, Kutikov A et al. 2016. Telemedicine in urology: state of the art. Urology 94:10–16
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Faruque LI, Wiebe N, Ehteshami-Afshar A, Liu Y, Dianati-Maleki N et al. 2017. Effect of telemedicine on glycated hemoglobin in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. CMAJ 189:9E341–64
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Fisher M. 2005. Developing and implementing future stroke therapies: the potential of telemedicine. Ann. Neurol. 58:5666–71
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Gerlach OH, Winogrodzka A, Weber WEJ 2011. Clinical problems in the hospitalized Parkinson's disease patient: systematic review. Mov. Disord. 26:2197–208
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Greenwood DA, Blozis SA, Young HM, Nesbitt TS, Quinn CC 2015. Overcoming clinical inertia: a randomized clinical trial of a telehealth remote monitoring intervention using paired glucose testing in adults with type 2 diabetes. J. Med. Internet Res. 17:7e178
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Griffiths SE, Parsons J, Naughton F, Fulton EA, Tombor I, Brown KE 2018. Are digital interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychol. Rev. 12:4333–56
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Hark L, Acito M, Adeghate J, Henderer J, Okudolo J et al. 2018. Philadelphia telemedicine glaucoma detection and follow-up study: ocular findings at two health centers. J. Health Care Poor Underserved 29:41400–15
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Hess DC, Wang S, Hamilton W, Lee S, Pardue C et al. 2005. REACH: clinical feasibility of a rural telestroke network. Stroke 36:92018–20
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Horwitz LI, Green J, Bradley EH 2010. US emergency department performance on wait time and length of visit. Ann. Emerg. Med. 55:2133–41
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Hsu WC, Lau KH, Huang R, Ghiloni S, Le H et al. 2016. Utilization of a cloud-based diabetes management program for insulin initiation and titration enables collaborative decision making between healthcare providers and patients. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 18:259–67
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Iglesias S, Kornelsen J. 2018. An evidence-based program for rural surgical and obstetrical networks. Rural Remote Health 18:44921
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Inglis SC, Clark RA, Dierckx R, Prieto-Merino D, Cleland JG 2015. Structured telephone support or non-invasive telemonitoring for patients with heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015. 10:CD007228
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Inst. Med. Comm. Monitor. Access Person. Health Care Serv 1993. Access to Health Care in America M Millman Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Inst. Med. Comm. Quality Health Care Am 2001. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Jaakkimainen L, Glazier R, Barnsley J, Salkeld E, Lu H, Tu K 2014. Waiting to see the specialist: patient and provider characteristics of wait times from primary to specialty care. BMC Fam. Pract. 15:16
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Kepplinger J, Barlinn K, Deckert S, Scheibe M, Bodechtel U, Schmitt J 2016. Safety and efficacy of thrombolysis in telestroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology 87:131344–51
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Koehler F, Koehler K, Deckwart O, Prescher S, Wegscheider K et al. 2018. Efficacy of telemedical interventional management in patients with heart failure (TIM-HF2): a randomised, controlled, parallel-group, unmasked trial. Lancet 392:101521047–57
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    Krum H, Forbes A, Yallop J, Driscoll A, Croucher J et al. 2013. Telephone support to rural and remote patients with heart failure: the Chronic Heart Failure Assessment by Telephone (CHAT) study. Cardiovasc. Ther. 31:4230–37
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Kruzich JM, Jivanjee P, Robinson A, Friesen BJ 2003. Family caregivers’ perceptions of barriers to and supports of participation in their children's out-of-home treatment. Psychiatr. Serv. 54:111513–18
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Ladapo JA, Turakhia MP, Ryan MP, Mollenkopf SA, Reynolds MR 2016. Health care utilization and expenditures associated with remote monitoring in patients with implantable cardiac devices. Am. J. Cardiol. 117:91455–62
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Lagman-Bartolome AM, Lawler V, Lay C 2018. Headache education active-waiting directive: a program to enhance well-being during long referral wait times. Headache 58:1109–17
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    LeRouge C, Garfield MJ. 2013. Crossing the telemedicine chasm: Have the U.S. barriers to widespread adoption of telemedicine been significantly reduced. ? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 10:126472–84
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Levine SR, Gorman M. 1999. “Telestroke”: the application of telemedicine for stroke. Stroke 30:2464–69
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Lin M-H, Yuan W-L, Huang T-C, Zhang H-F, Mai J-T, Wang J-F 2017. Clinical effectiveness of telemedicine for chronic heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Investig. Med. 65:5899–911
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Littenberg B, Strauss K, MacLean CD, Troy AR 2006. The use of insulin declines as patients live farther from their source of care: results of a survey of adults with type 2 diabetes. BMC Public Health 6:198
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    López-Cancio E, Ribó M, Cardona P, Serena J, Purroy F et al. 2018. Telestroke in Catalonia: increasing thrombolysis rate and avoiding interhospital transfers. Cerebrovasc. Dis. 46:1–266–71
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    Lund S, Hemed M, Nielsen BB, Said A, Said K et al. 2012. Mobile phones as a health communication tool to improve skilled attendance at delivery in Zanzibar: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. BJOG 119:101256–64
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Lyerly MJ, Wu T-C, Mullen MT, Alright KC, Wolff C et al. 2016. The effects of telemedicine on racial and ethnic disparities in access to acute stroke care. J. Telemed. Telecare 22:2114–20
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Magann EF, McKelvey SS, Hilt WC, Smith MV, Azam GA, Lowery CL 2011. The use of telemedicine in obstetrics: a review of the literature. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 66:3170–78
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Mansberger SL, Sheppler C, Barker G, Gardiner SK, Demirel S et al. 2015. Long-term comparative effectiveness of telemedicine in providing diabetic retinopathy screening examinations: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol 133:5518–25
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Marcolino MS, Ribeiro ALP. 2019. Reperfusion criteria in patients submitted to fibrinolysis: Is there room for improvement. ? Arq. Bras Cardiol. 112:130–31
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Marko KI, Ganju N, Krapf JM, Gaba ND, Brown JA et al. 2019. A mobile prenatal care app to reduce in-person visits: prospective controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 7:5e10520
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK, Drake P 2018. Births: final data for 2016. Natl. Vital Stat. Rep. 67:11–55
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    Mehrotra A, Huskamp HA, Souza J, Uscher-Pines L, Rose S et al. 2017. Rapid growth in mental health telemedicine use among rural Medicare beneficiaries, wide variation across states. Health Aff 36:5909–17
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    Meyer BC, Raman R, Hemmen T, Obler R, Zivin JA et al. 2008. Efficacy of site-independent telemedicine in the STRokE DOC trial: a randomised, blinded, prospective study. Lancet Neurol 7:9787–95
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    Ming W-K, Mackillop LH, Farmer AJ, Loerup L, Bartlett K et al. 2016. Telemedicine technologies for diabetes in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 18:11e290
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    Molfenter T, Boyle M, Holloway D, Zwick J 2015. Trends in telemedicine use in addiction treatment. Addict. Sci. Clin. Pract. 10:14
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    Morriss R, Patel S, Malins S, Guo B, Higton F et al. 2019. Clinical and economic outcomes of remotely delivered cognitive behaviour therapy versus treatment as usual for repeat unscheduled care users with severe health anxiety: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMC Med 17:116
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72. 
    Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ et al. 2016. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2016 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 133:4e38–360
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    Natl. Cent. Health Stat 2018. Health, United States, 2017: With Special Feature on Mortality Hyattsville, MD: Natl. Cent. Health Stat.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    Nelson RE, Saltzman GM, Skalabrin EJ, Demaerschalk BM, Majersik JJ 2011. The cost-effectiveness of telestroke in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Neurology 77:171590–98
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. 
    Nord G, Rising KL, Band RA, Carr BG, Hollander JE 2019. On-demand synchronous audio video telemedicine visits are cost effective. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 37:5890–94
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. 
    O'Connor CM. 2017. High heart failure readmission rates: Is it the health system's fault. ? JACC Heart Fail 5:5393
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. 
    Off. Dis. Prev. Health Promot 2019. 2020 topics & objectives, access to health services. Healthypeople.gov https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/Access-to-Health-Services
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. 
    Off. Natl. Coord. Health Inf. Technol 2019. Are there state licensing issues related to telehealth?. Healthit.gov https://www.healthit.gov/faq/are-there-state-licensing-issues-related-telehealth
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. 
    Osman MA, Schick-Makaroff K, Thompson S, Bialy L, Featherstone R et al. 2019. Barriers and facilitators for implementation of electronic consultations (eConsult) to enhance access to specialist care: a scoping review. BMJ Glob. Health 4:5e001629
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80. 
    Petersen C, DeMuro P. 2015. Legal and regulatory considerations associated with use of patient-generated health data from social media and mobile health (mHealth) devices. Appl. Clin. Inform. 6:116–26
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81. 
    Piao C, Terrault NA, Sarkar S 2019. Telemedicine: an evolving field in hepatology. Hepatol. Commun. 3:5716–21
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    Porciuncula F, Roto AV, Kumar D, Davis I, Roy S et al. 2018. Wearable movement sensors for rehabilitation: a focused review of technological and clinical advances. PM&R 10:9 Suppl. 2S220–32
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83. 
    Rajda J, Seraly MP, Fernandes J, Niejadlik K, Wei H et al. 2018. Impact of direct to consumer store-and-forward teledermatology on access to care, satisfaction, utilization, and costs in a commercial health plan population. Telemed. J. E Health 24:2166–69
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    Rasekaba TM, Furler J, Young D, Liew D, Gray K et al. 2018. Using technology to support care in gestational diabetes mellitus: quantitative outcomes of an exploratory randomised control trial of adjunct telemedicine for gestational diabetes mellitus (TeleGDM). Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 142:276–85
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85. 
    Ray KN, Chari AV, Engberg J, Bertolet M, Mehrotra A 2015. Disparities in time spent seeking medical care in the United States. JAMA Intern. Med. 175:121983–86
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86. 
    Renjen P, Chaudhari D. 2016. Telemedicine and stroke: Stroke Emergency Mobile Unit—a new approach to stroke care. Neurol. India 64:7110–12
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87. 
    Rosenblatt RA, Chen FM, Lishner DM, Doescher MP 2010. The future of family medicine and implications for rural primary care physician supply Rep., WWAMI Rural Health Res. Cent. Seattle, WA: https://depts.washington.edu/uwrhrc/uploads/RHRC_FR125_Rosenblatt.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88. 
    Scott Kruse C, Karem P, Shifflett K, Vegi L, Ravi K, Brooks M 2018. Evaluating barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide: a systematic review. J. Telemed. Telecare 24:14–12
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89. 
    Shah MN, Wasserman EB, Wang H, Gillespie SM, Noyes K et al. 2015. High-intensity telemedicine decreases emergency department use by senior living community residents. Telemed. J. E Health 22:3251–58
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90. 
    Shea S, Weinstock RS, Teresi JA, Palmas W, Starren J et al. 2009. A randomized trial comparing telemedicine case management with usual care in older, ethnically diverse, medically underserved patients with diabetes mellitus: 5 year results of the IDEATel Study. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 16:4446–56
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. 
    Shen Y, Wang F, Zhang X, Zhu X, Sun Q et al. 2018. Effectiveness of Internet-based interventions on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Med. Internet Res. 20:5e172
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. 
    Silva de Lima AL, Evers LJW, Hahn T, Bataille L, Hamilton JL et al. 2017. Freezing of gait and fall detection in Parkinson's disease using wearable sensors: a systematic review. J. Neurol. 264:81642–54
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93. 
    Struminger BB, Arora S. 2019. Leveraging telehealth to improve health care access in rural America: It takes more than bandwidth. Ann. Intern. Med. 171:5376–77
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94. 
    Su D, Zhou J, Kelley MS, Michaud TL, Siahpush M et al. 2016. Does telemedicine improve treatment outcomes for diabetes? A meta-analysis of results from 55 randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 116:136–48
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95. 
    Switzer JA, Demaerschalk BM, Xie J, Fan L, Villa KF, Wu EQ 2013. Cost-effectiveness of hub-and-spoke telestroke networks for the management of acute ischemic stroke from the hospitals’ perspectives. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 6:118–26
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96. 
    Tapia-Conyer R, Lyford S, Saucedo R, Casale M, Gallardo H et al. 2015. Improving perinatal care in the rural regions worldwide by wireless enabled antepartum fetal monitoring: a demonstration project. Int. J. Telemed. Appl. 2015:794180
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97. 
    US GAO (Gov. Account. Off.) 2009. Hospital emergency departments: Crowding continues to occur, and some patients wait longer than recommended time frames GAO-09–347, US GAO Washington, DC: https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09347.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98. 
    van den Heuvel JF, Groenhof TK, Veerbeek JH, van Solinge WW, Lely AT et al. 2018. eHealth as the next-generation perinatal care: an overview of the literature. J. Med. Internet. Res. 20:6e202
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99. 
    Watzlaf VJM, Moeini S, Firouzan P 2010. VOIP for telerehabilitation: a risk analysis for privacy, security, and HIPAA compliance. Int. J. Telerehabil. 2:23–14
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100. 
    Weinstock RS, Teresi JA, Goland R, Izquierdo R, Palmas W et al. 2011. Glycemic control and health disparities in older ethnically diverse underserved adults with diabetes: five-year results from the Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) study. Diabetes Care 34:2274–79
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101. 
    Wicklund E. 2019. Telemedicine licensure compact is now live in half the country. mHealth Intelligence Jan. 10. https://mhealthintelligence.com/news/telemedicine-licensure-compact-is-now-live-in-half-the-country
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 102. 
    Wilson FA, Rampa S, Trout KE, Stimpson JP 2017. Telehealth delivery of mental health services: an analysis of private insurance claims data in the United States. Psychiatr. Serv. 68:121303–6
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103. 
    Wood CL, Clements SA, McFann K, Slover R, Thomas JF, Wadwa RP 2016. Use of telemedicine to improve adherence to American Diabetes Association standards in pediatric type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 18:17–14
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104. 
    Xi H, Gan G, Zhang H, Chen C 2015. Design of smart care tele-monitoring system for mother and fetus. Zhongguo Yi Liao Qi Xie Za Zhi 39:2102–4
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 105. 
    Yang Y-T, Iqbal U, Ching JH-Y, Ting JB-S, Chiu H-T et al. 2015. Trends in the growth of literature of telemedicine: a bibliometric analysis. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 122:3471–79
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106. 
    Zhai Y-K, Zhu W-J, Cai Y-L, Sun D-X, Zhao J 2014. Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 93:28e312
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107. 
    Zhou L, Thieret R, Watzlaf V, Dealmeida D, Parmanto B 2019. A telehealth privacy and security self-assessment questionnaire for telehealth providers: development and validation. Int. J. Telerehabil. 11:13–14
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090519-093711
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090519-093711
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error