Emergency Visits and Hospitalization After Chat Message, Voice Call, or Video Call for Telehealth in Obstetrics and Gynecology Using Telehealth Service User Data in Japan: Cross-sectional Study.
chat message
eHealth
gynecology
mHealth
mobile health
obstetrics
safety
telehealth
telemedicine
video call
voice call
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 09 2022
23 09 2022
Historique:
received:
29
12
2021
accepted:
31
08
2022
revised:
14
06
2022
entrez:
23
9
2022
pubmed:
24
9
2022
medline:
28
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In obstetric and gynecologic practices, synchronous telehealth services via chat message, voice calls, and video calls have been increasingly equipped to improve patients' health care accessibility and clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, differences in clinical outcomes between communication tools remain unknown, especially in terms of safety. This study compared the occurrence of emergency visits and hospitalization after telehealth services through different communication tools, including chat messages, voice calls, and video calls. We collected data on obstetric and gynecologic concerns of women who consulted specialized doctors and midwives through a telehealth consulting service in Japan (Sanfujin-ka Online) between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. The outcomes were emergency visits or hospitalizations at night after the consultation. Chi-square test and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to compare the clinical outcomes between the groups who received telehealth services via chat message, voice calls, and video calls. This study included 3635 participants. The mean age of the participants was 31.4 (SD 5.7) years, and the largest age group (n=2154, 59.3%) was 30-39 years. The numbers (or proportions) of those who received telehealth services via chat message, voice calls, and video calls were 1584 (43.5%), 1947 (53.6%), and 104 (2.9%), respectively. The overall incidence of the outcome was 0.7% (26/3635), including 10 (0.3%) cases of chat message, 16 (0.5%) cases of voice calls, and no video calls. There were no emergency visits that happened due to inappropriate advice. No significant difference in the proportions of the outcomes was observed between the communication tools (P=.55). The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant differences in the outcome between those who used chat message and those who used voice calls (odds ratio 1.63, 95% CI 0.73-3.65). The communication tools of telehealth services in obstetrics and gynecology did not show a significant difference in terms of emergency visits or hospitalizations after using the service.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In obstetric and gynecologic practices, synchronous telehealth services via chat message, voice calls, and video calls have been increasingly equipped to improve patients' health care accessibility and clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, differences in clinical outcomes between communication tools remain unknown, especially in terms of safety.
OBJECTIVE
This study compared the occurrence of emergency visits and hospitalization after telehealth services through different communication tools, including chat messages, voice calls, and video calls.
METHODS
We collected data on obstetric and gynecologic concerns of women who consulted specialized doctors and midwives through a telehealth consulting service in Japan (Sanfujin-ka Online) between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. The outcomes were emergency visits or hospitalizations at night after the consultation. Chi-square test and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to compare the clinical outcomes between the groups who received telehealth services via chat message, voice calls, and video calls.
RESULTS
This study included 3635 participants. The mean age of the participants was 31.4 (SD 5.7) years, and the largest age group (n=2154, 59.3%) was 30-39 years. The numbers (or proportions) of those who received telehealth services via chat message, voice calls, and video calls were 1584 (43.5%), 1947 (53.6%), and 104 (2.9%), respectively. The overall incidence of the outcome was 0.7% (26/3635), including 10 (0.3%) cases of chat message, 16 (0.5%) cases of voice calls, and no video calls. There were no emergency visits that happened due to inappropriate advice. No significant difference in the proportions of the outcomes was observed between the communication tools (P=.55). The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant differences in the outcome between those who used chat message and those who used voice calls (odds ratio 1.63, 95% CI 0.73-3.65).
CONCLUSIONS
The communication tools of telehealth services in obstetrics and gynecology did not show a significant difference in terms of emergency visits or hospitalizations after using the service.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36149744
pii: v24i9e35643
doi: 10.2196/35643
pmc: PMC9547329
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e35643Informations de copyright
©Koichi Sakakibara, Daisuke Shigemi, Rena Toriumi, Ai Ota, Nobuaki Michihata, Hideo Yasunaga. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 23.09.2022.
Références
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2020 Sep;47(3):497-502
pubmed: 32762934
Transl Behav Med. 2017 Jun;7(2):212-223
pubmed: 27800565
MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2016 Jan-Feb;41(1):24-30
pubmed: 26474477
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Oct 13;19(10):e337
pubmed: 29030327
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2020 Jun;47(2):241-247
pubmed: 32451015
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Jan 6;21(1):18
pubmed: 33407226
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34
pubmed: 15471760
Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):371-382
pubmed: 31977782
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021 Mar 1;147(3):287-295
pubmed: 33443539
Telemed J E Health. 2006 Feb;12(1):35-41
pubmed: 16478411
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2020 Jun;47(2):333-340
pubmed: 32451021
Popul Health Manag. 2020 Oct;23(5):368-377
pubmed: 32816644
BMC Public Health. 2012 Nov 26;12:1031
pubmed: 23181985
Telemed J E Health. 2017 Oct;23(10):833-841
pubmed: 28475431
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2020 Jun;47(2):249-257
pubmed: 32451016
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015 Feb;55(1):87-9
pubmed: 25355283
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Feb 19;70(7):240-244
pubmed: 33600385