数字医生就诊质量与用户特征:回顾性观察研究。

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Sanna Lakoma, Henna Pasanen, Kaisla Lahdensuo, Jaakko Pehkonen, Jutta Viinikainen, Paulus Torkki
{"title":"数字医生就诊质量与用户特征:回顾性观察研究。","authors":"Sanna Lakoma, Henna Pasanen, Kaisla Lahdensuo, Jaakko Pehkonen, Jutta Viinikainen, Paulus Torkki","doi":"10.1080/02813432.2024.2380921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study compares the demographics, diagnoses, re-admission rates, sick leaves, and prescribed medications of patients accessing digital general practitioner (GP) visits with those of patients opting for traditional face-to-face appointments in a primary health care setting.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>The study adopted a retrospective analysis of patient record data collected in 2019, comparing visits to a digital primary health center with traditional health center visits.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Primary health care.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>The data encompassed patients who utilized the digital clinic and those who visited public health centers for primary health care services.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The study assessed demographics, health diagnoses, prescribed medications, sick leave recommendations, re-admission rates, and differences in costs between digital clinic and face-to-face visits. Secondary outcomes included a comparative analysis of medication categories, resolution rates for health problems, and potential impacts on health care utilization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Digital clinic users were typically younger, more educated, and predominantly female compared with health centre users. Digital visits were well-suited for uncomplicated infections, while health centre appointments were associated with a higher prevalence of chronic conditions. Medication patterns differed between the two modalities, with digital clinic users receiving generic over-the-counter drugs and antibiotics, whereas health centre visits commonly involved cardiac and antihypertensive medications. Sick leave recommendations were slightly higher in the digital clinic, but the difference was not significant. Approximately 70% of health problems addressed in the digital clinic were successfully resolved, and the cost of digital visits was about 50,3% of face-to-face appointments.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Digital health care services offer a cost-efficient alternative for specific health problems, appealing to younger, educated individuals, when compared to the users of public health center, and may enable improvement of cost-effectiveness combined with acceptable demand management and patient segmentation practices. The results highlight the potential benefits of digital clinics, particularly for uncomplicated cases, while also emphasizing the importance of suitable referral mechanisms for in-person consultations.</p>","PeriodicalId":21521,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care","volume":" ","pages":"686-694"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552287/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality of the digital gp visits and characteristics of the users: retrospective observational study.\",\"authors\":\"Sanna Lakoma, Henna Pasanen, Kaisla Lahdensuo, Jaakko Pehkonen, Jutta Viinikainen, Paulus Torkki\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02813432.2024.2380921\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study compares the demographics, diagnoses, re-admission rates, sick leaves, and prescribed medications of patients accessing digital general practitioner (GP) visits with those of patients opting for traditional face-to-face appointments in a primary health care setting.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>The study adopted a retrospective analysis of patient record data collected in 2019, comparing visits to a digital primary health center with traditional health center visits.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Primary health care.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>The data encompassed patients who utilized the digital clinic and those who visited public health centers for primary health care services.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The study assessed demographics, health diagnoses, prescribed medications, sick leave recommendations, re-admission rates, and differences in costs between digital clinic and face-to-face visits. Secondary outcomes included a comparative analysis of medication categories, resolution rates for health problems, and potential impacts on health care utilization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Digital clinic users were typically younger, more educated, and predominantly female compared with health centre users. Digital visits were well-suited for uncomplicated infections, while health centre appointments were associated with a higher prevalence of chronic conditions. Medication patterns differed between the two modalities, with digital clinic users receiving generic over-the-counter drugs and antibiotics, whereas health centre visits commonly involved cardiac and antihypertensive medications. Sick leave recommendations were slightly higher in the digital clinic, but the difference was not significant. Approximately 70% of health problems addressed in the digital clinic were successfully resolved, and the cost of digital visits was about 50,3% of face-to-face appointments.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Digital health care services offer a cost-efficient alternative for specific health problems, appealing to younger, educated individuals, when compared to the users of public health center, and may enable improvement of cost-effectiveness combined with acceptable demand management and patient segmentation practices. The results highlight the potential benefits of digital clinics, particularly for uncomplicated cases, while also emphasizing the importance of suitable referral mechanisms for in-person consultations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21521,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"686-694\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552287/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2024.2380921\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2024.2380921","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究比较了在初级卫生保健机构接受数字化全科医生(GP)就诊的患者与选择传统面对面就诊的患者的人口统计学、诊断、再入院率、病假和处方药物:研究对2019年收集的病历数据进行了回顾性分析,比较了数字初级保健中心与传统保健中心的就诊情况:参与者数据包括使用数字诊所的患者和到公共卫生中心接受初级医疗服务的患者:研究对人口统计学、健康诊断、处方药、病假建议、再入院率以及数字诊所和面对面就诊之间的费用差异进行了评估。次要结果包括药物类别的比较分析、健康问题的解决率以及对医疗保健利用率的潜在影响:结果:与医疗中心用户相比,数字诊所用户通常更年轻、受教育程度更高、以女性为主。数字门诊非常适合治疗无并发症的感染,而保健中心的就诊则与慢性病患病率较高有关。两种就诊方式的用药模式不同,数字门诊用户使用的是普通非处方药和抗生素,而医疗中心就诊者通常使用的是心脏病药物和降压药。数字诊所的病假建议略高,但差异不大。数字诊所解决的健康问题中约有 70% 得到了成功解决,数字就诊的成本约为面对面预约的 50.3%:与公共医疗中心的用户相比,数字医疗服务为特定健康问题提供了一种具有成本效益的替代方案,对年轻、受过教育的人具有吸引力。研究结果凸显了数字诊所的潜在优势,尤其是对不复杂的病例而言,同时也强调了合适的转诊机制对面对面咨询的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quality of the digital gp visits and characteristics of the users: retrospective observational study.

Objectives: This study compares the demographics, diagnoses, re-admission rates, sick leaves, and prescribed medications of patients accessing digital general practitioner (GP) visits with those of patients opting for traditional face-to-face appointments in a primary health care setting.

Design: The study adopted a retrospective analysis of patient record data collected in 2019, comparing visits to a digital primary health center with traditional health center visits.

Setting: Primary health care.

Participants: The data encompassed patients who utilized the digital clinic and those who visited public health centers for primary health care services.

Main outcome measures: The study assessed demographics, health diagnoses, prescribed medications, sick leave recommendations, re-admission rates, and differences in costs between digital clinic and face-to-face visits. Secondary outcomes included a comparative analysis of medication categories, resolution rates for health problems, and potential impacts on health care utilization.

Results: Digital clinic users were typically younger, more educated, and predominantly female compared with health centre users. Digital visits were well-suited for uncomplicated infections, while health centre appointments were associated with a higher prevalence of chronic conditions. Medication patterns differed between the two modalities, with digital clinic users receiving generic over-the-counter drugs and antibiotics, whereas health centre visits commonly involved cardiac and antihypertensive medications. Sick leave recommendations were slightly higher in the digital clinic, but the difference was not significant. Approximately 70% of health problems addressed in the digital clinic were successfully resolved, and the cost of digital visits was about 50,3% of face-to-face appointments.

Conclusion: Digital health care services offer a cost-efficient alternative for specific health problems, appealing to younger, educated individuals, when compared to the users of public health center, and may enable improvement of cost-effectiveness combined with acceptable demand management and patient segmentation practices. The results highlight the potential benefits of digital clinics, particularly for uncomplicated cases, while also emphasizing the importance of suitable referral mechanisms for in-person consultations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
19.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care is an international online open access journal publishing articles with relevance to general practice and primary health care. Focusing on the continuous professional development in family medicine the journal addresses clinical, epidemiological and humanistic topics in relation to the daily clinical practice. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care is owned by the members of the National Colleges of General Practice in the five Nordic countries through the Nordic Federation of General Practice (NFGP). The journal includes original research on topics related to general practice and family medicine, and publishes both quantitative and qualitative original research, editorials, discussion and analysis papers and reviews to facilitate continuing professional development in family medicine. The journal''s topics range broadly and include: • Clinical family medicine • Epidemiological research • Qualitative research • Health services research.
×
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