Comparing the Quality of Direct-to-Consumer Telemedicine Dominated and Delivered by Public and Private Sector Platforms in China: Standardized Patient Study.

IF 5.8 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Faying Song, Xue Gong, Yuting Yang, Rui Guo
{"title":"Comparing the Quality of Direct-to-Consumer Telemedicine Dominated and Delivered by Public and Private Sector Platforms in China: Standardized Patient Study.","authors":"Faying Song, Xue Gong, Yuting Yang, Rui Guo","doi":"10.2196/55400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Telemedicine is expanding rapidly, with public direct-to-consumer (DTC) telemedicine representing 70% of the market. A key priority is establishing clear quality distinctions between the public and private sectors. No studies have directly compared the quality of DTC telemedicine in the public and private sectors using objective evaluation methods.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Using a standardized patient (SP) approach, this study aimed to compare the quality of DTC telemedicine provided by China's public and private sectors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recruited 10 SPs presenting fixed cases (urticaria and childhood diarrhea), with 594 interactions between them and physicians. The SPs evaluated various aspects of the quality of care, effectiveness, safety, patient-centeredness (PCC), efficiency, and timeliness using the Institute of Medicine (IOM) quality framework. Ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression models with fixed effects were used for continuous variables, while logistic regression models with fixed effects were used for categorical variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant quality differences were observed between public and private DTC telemedicine. Physicians from private platforms were significantly more likely to adhere to clinical checklists (adjusted β 15.22, P<.001); provide an accurate diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.85, P<.001), an appropriate prescription (adjusted OR 3.87, P<.001), and lifestyle modification advice (adjusted OR 6.82, P<.001); ensure more PCC (adjusted β 3.34, P<.001); and spend more time with SPs (adjusted β 839.70, P<.001), with more responses (adjusted β 1.33, P=.001) and more words (adjusted β 50.93, P=.009). However, SPs on private platforms waited longer for the first response (adjusted β 505.87, P=.001) and each response (adjusted β 168.33, P=.04) and paid more for the average visit (adjusted β 40.03, P<.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is significant quality inequality in different DTC telemedicine platforms. Private physicians might provide a higher quality of service regarding effectiveness and safety, PCC, and response times and words. However, private platforms have longer wait times for their first response, as well as higher costs. Refining online reviews, establishing standardized norms and pricing, enhancing the performance evaluation mechanism for public DTC telemedicine, and imposing stricter limitations on the first response time for private physicians should be considered practical approaches to optimizing the management of DTC telemedicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":16337,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","volume":"26 ","pages":"e55400"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/55400","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Telemedicine is expanding rapidly, with public direct-to-consumer (DTC) telemedicine representing 70% of the market. A key priority is establishing clear quality distinctions between the public and private sectors. No studies have directly compared the quality of DTC telemedicine in the public and private sectors using objective evaluation methods.

Objective: Using a standardized patient (SP) approach, this study aimed to compare the quality of DTC telemedicine provided by China's public and private sectors.

Methods: We recruited 10 SPs presenting fixed cases (urticaria and childhood diarrhea), with 594 interactions between them and physicians. The SPs evaluated various aspects of the quality of care, effectiveness, safety, patient-centeredness (PCC), efficiency, and timeliness using the Institute of Medicine (IOM) quality framework. Ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression models with fixed effects were used for continuous variables, while logistic regression models with fixed effects were used for categorical variables.

Results: Significant quality differences were observed between public and private DTC telemedicine. Physicians from private platforms were significantly more likely to adhere to clinical checklists (adjusted β 15.22, P<.001); provide an accurate diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.85, P<.001), an appropriate prescription (adjusted OR 3.87, P<.001), and lifestyle modification advice (adjusted OR 6.82, P<.001); ensure more PCC (adjusted β 3.34, P<.001); and spend more time with SPs (adjusted β 839.70, P<.001), with more responses (adjusted β 1.33, P=.001) and more words (adjusted β 50.93, P=.009). However, SPs on private platforms waited longer for the first response (adjusted β 505.87, P=.001) and each response (adjusted β 168.33, P=.04) and paid more for the average visit (adjusted β 40.03, P<.001).

Conclusions: There is significant quality inequality in different DTC telemedicine platforms. Private physicians might provide a higher quality of service regarding effectiveness and safety, PCC, and response times and words. However, private platforms have longer wait times for their first response, as well as higher costs. Refining online reviews, establishing standardized norms and pricing, enhancing the performance evaluation mechanism for public DTC telemedicine, and imposing stricter limitations on the first response time for private physicians should be considered practical approaches to optimizing the management of DTC telemedicine.

中国公私平台主导和提供的直接面向消费者的远程医疗质量比较:标准化患者研究。
背景:远程医疗正在迅速发展,公共直接面向消费者(DTC)远程医疗占市场的 70%。当务之急是在公共部门和私营部门之间建立明确的质量区分。目前还没有研究使用客观的评估方法直接比较公共和私营领域 DTC 远程医疗的质量:本研究采用标准化病人(SP)的方法,旨在比较中国公私部门提供的 DTC 远程医疗的质量:我们招募了 10 名提供固定病例(荨麻疹和儿童腹泻)的标准化病人,他们与医生之间进行了 594 次互动。SP们采用美国医学研究院(IOM)的质量框架,对医疗质量、有效性、安全性、以患者为中心(PCC)、效率和及时性等各个方面进行了评估。对连续变量采用具有固定效应的普通最小二乘法(OLS)回归模型,对分类变量采用具有固定效应的逻辑回归模型:公共和私营 DTC 远程医疗之间存在显著的质量差异。私营平台的医生更有可能遵守临床检查单(调整后 β 15.22,PC 结论:不同 DTC 远程医疗平台之间存在显著的质量不平等:不同的 DTC 远程医疗平台存在严重的质量不平等。在有效性和安全性、PCC 以及响应时间和话语方面,私人医生可能提供更高质量的服务。然而,私人平台的首次响应等待时间更长,成本也更高。细化在线评论、建立标准化的规范和定价、加强公共 DTC 远程医疗的绩效评估机制、对私人医生的首次响应时间进行更严格的限制,应被视为优化 DTC 远程医疗管理的实用方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
5.40%
发文量
654
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) is a highly respected publication in the field of health informatics and health services. With a founding date in 1999, JMIR has been a pioneer in the field for over two decades. As a leader in the industry, the journal focuses on digital health, data science, health informatics, and emerging technologies for health, medicine, and biomedical research. It is recognized as a top publication in these disciplines, ranking in the first quartile (Q1) by Impact Factor. Notably, JMIR holds the prestigious position of being ranked #1 on Google Scholar within the "Medical Informatics" discipline.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信