CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsTechnology Use by Older Adults

Telemedicine and health disparities: Association between patient characteristics and telemedicine, in-person, telephone and message-based care during the COVID-19 pandemic

Open access
Tong, Ling, George, Ben, Crotty, Bradley H., Somai, Melek, Taylor, Bradley W., Osinski, Kristen, Luo, Jake·2022·IPEM-Translation
DOI 10.1016/j.ipemt.2022.100010PMC PMC9617798
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Telemedicine has been an essential form of care since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, telemedicine may exacerbate disparities for populations with limited digital literacy or access, such as older adults, racial minorities, patients of low income, rural residences, or limited English proficiency. From March 2020 to March 2022, this retrospective cohort study analyzed the use of in-person, phone/message, and telemedical care at a single tertiary care center in an oncology department. We investigated the association between economic, racial, ethnic, socioeconomic factors and forms of care, including in-person visits, telemedicine-based visits, and telephone/messages. The study results show that telemedicine utilization is lower among patients 65 and older, female patients, American Indian or Alaska Native patients, uninsured patients, and patients who require interpreters during clinical visits. As a result, it is unlikely that telemedicine will provide equal access to clinical care for all populations. On the other hand, in-person care utilization remains low in low-income and rural-living patients compared to the general population, while telephone and message use remains high in low-income and rural-living patients. We conclude that telemedicine is currently unable to close the utilization gap for populations of low socioeconomic status. Patients with low socioeconomic status use in-person care less frequently. For the disadvantaged, unusually high telephone or message utilization is unlikely to provide the same quality as in-person or telemedical care. Understanding the causes of disparity and promoting a solution to improve equal access to care for all patients is critical.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ipemt.2022.100010

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI capabilities have advanced at unprecedented rates over the past 2 to 3 years, alongside a sharp increase in FDA-cleared or approved AI-based medical devices.

    “AI capabilities have advanced at unprecedented rates over the past 2 to 3 years, coinciding with a sharp increase in FDA-cleared or approved AI-based medical devices.24,25”

    From Review of Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Use in Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Introduction and Discussion passages (page numbers unavailable) address telemedicine adoption during COVID-19, not advances in AI capabilities or FDA-cleared or approved AI-based devices. Searches for the device-approval phrase and related AI/FDA terms found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tong, L., George, B., Crotty, B. H., Somai, M., Taylor, B. W., Osinski, K., & Luo, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
  • Froedtert Hospital (US)
  • Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
Corresponding author
Luo, Jake
ORCID
Venue
IPEM-Translation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-11
Volume
3-4
Pages
100010
ISSN
2667-2588 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ipemt.2022.100010
PMC
PMC9617798
OpenAlex
W4307955471
Cited by
43
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2
FWCI
8.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • IPEM-Translation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001436)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
Keywords
telemedicine, health disparities, COVID-19 pandemic, cancer care, health care access, socioeconomic status, racial and ethnic disparities, older adults, uninsured patients, rural patients, limited English proficiency, interpreters, digital literacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review