CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsDental Research and COVID-19

Exploring cancer patients’, caregivers’, and clinicians’ utilisation and experiences of telehealth services during COVID-19: A qualitative study

Open access
Smith, Sarah J., Smith, Allan Ben, Kennett, William, Vinod, Shalini K.·2022·Patient Education and Counseling
DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2022.06.001PMC PMC9170274
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted oncology. With pandemic restrictions limiting close contact between individuals, telehealth (the use of teleconferencing/videoconferencing to conduct real-time medical consultations) has been increasingly utilised. This qualitative study aimed to explore adult cancer patient, caregiver, and clinician (doctor, nurse, allied health) telehealth experiences during COVID-19 in urban and rural Australian settings and identify potential enablers and barriers to sustained telehealth implementation. Methods English-speaking participants completed semi-structured interviews regarding their telehealth experiences since March 2020. Interviews ceased when data saturation occurred. Iterative thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 12 Pro. Results Thirty-four interviews (clinician=14, patient=13, caregiver=7) were conducted from April to August 2021. Analysis generated seven themes relating to telehealth use: 1) Acceptability as a form of consultation, 2) Impacts on healthcare provision, 3) Communication & relationships, 4) Efficient form of consultation, 5) Comfort of conducting telehealth in different environments, 6) Technological barriers and 7) Future preferences. Conclusions The rapid uptake of telehealth during the pandemic has mostly been well-received, and telehealth can be appropriately used in oncology. Practice implications Barriers including providing appropriate facilities, technology, and telehealth training; and selecting appropriate patients must be addressed to enable sustained telehealth use in future cancer care.

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.pec.2022.06.001

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • Digital literacy, language, access to devices, reliable internet connectivity, and confidence using technology affected participation across several studies.

    “Digital literacy, language, access to devices, reliable internet connectivity, and confidence using technology affected participation across several studies [25,37,46,48,50,58].”

    From Digital health technologies in oncology services: A scoping review of clinical implementation, organisational evidence gaps, and policy implications (2026) · cites this paper as [58]

    Results, Theme 6, identifies low technological literacy, lack of confidence, and poor connectivity as barriers to video telehealth. Results, Theme 3, describes difficulties using interpreters for non-English-speaking patients. The paper discusses hospital-provided equipment, but the passages found do not establish that patients’ access to devices affected participation. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. [1]Bray F. Ferlay J. Soerjomataram I. Siegel R.L. Torre L.A. Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA: Cancer J Clin 68 2018 394 424 10.3322/caac.21492 30207593 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [6]Larson J.L. Rosen A.B. Wilson F.A. The effect of telehealth interventions on quality of life of cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis Telemed J E Health 24 2018 397 405 10.1089/tmj.2017.0112 29112484 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [7]Okuyama S. Jones W. Ricklefs C. Tran Z.V. Psychosocial telephone interventions for patients with cancer and survivors: a systematic review Psycho-Oncol 24 2015 857 870 10.1002/pon.3704 25328103 · DOI
  4. [10]Heyer A. Granberg R.E. Rising K.L. Binder A.F. Gentsch A.T. Handley N.R. Medical oncology professionals’ perceptions of telehealth video visits JAMA Netw Open 4 2021 e2033967 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.33967 PMC7809588 33443581 · DOI
  5. [11]Zhang H. Cha E.E. Lynch K. Cahlon O. Gomez D.R. Shaverdian N. Radiation oncologist perceptions of telemedicine from consultation to treatment planning: a mixed-methods study Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 108 2020 421 429 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.07.007 32890525 PMC7462757 · DOI
  6. [12]Sabesan S. Kelly J. Evans R. Larkins S. A tele-oncology model replacing face-to-face specialist cancer care: perspectives of patients in North Queensland J Telemed Telecare 20 2014 207 211 10.1177/1357633×14529237 24643950 · DOI
  7. [13]Hamilton E. Van Veldhuizen E. Brown A. Brennan S. Sabesan S. Telehealth in radiation oncology at the Townsville Cancer Centre: service evaluation and patient satisfaction Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 15 2019 20 25 10.1016/j.ctro.2018.11.005 30582017 PMC6293044 · DOI
  8. [14]Granberg R.E. Heyer A. Rising K.L. Handley N.R. Gentsch A.T. Binder A.F. Medical oncology patient perceptions of telehealth video visits J Oncol Pract 17 2021 e1333 e1343 10.1200/OP.21.00086 34288697 · DOI
  9. [15]Triantafillou V. Layfield E. Prasad A. Deng J. Shanti R.M. Newman J.G. Patient perceptions of head and neck ambulatory telemedicine visits: a qualitative study Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 164 2020 923 931 10.1177/0194599820943523 32662749 · DOI
  10. [16]Sabesan S. Simcox K. Marr I. Medical oncology clinics through videoconferencing: an acceptable telehealth model for rural patients and health workers Intern Med J 42 2012 780 785 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2011.02537.x 21627743 · DOI
  11. [17]Street R.L. Treiman K. Kranzler E.C. Moultrie R. Arena L. Mack N. Oncology patients’ communication experiences during COVID-19: comparing telehealth consultations to in-person visits Support Care Cancer 30 2022 4769 4780 10.1007/s00520-022-06897-8 35141772 PMC9046548 · DOI
  12. [18]Watanabe S.M. Fairchild A. Pituskin E. Borgersen P. Hanson J. Fassbender K. Improving access to specialist multidisciplinary palliative care consultation for rural cancer patients by videoconferencing: report of a pilot project Support Care Cancer 21 2013 1201 1207 10.1007/s00520-012-1649-7 23161339 · DOI
  13. [19]McCarthy M.S. Matthews E.E. Battaglia C. Meek P.M. Feasibility of a telemedicine-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia in rural breast cancer survivors Oncol Nurs Forum 45 2018 607 618 10.1188/18.Onf.607-618 30118453 · DOI
  14. [20]Weinerman B. Duyf J.D. Hughes A. Robertson S. Can subspecialty cancer consultations be delivered to communities using modern technology?—a pilot study Telemed J E Health 11 2005 608 615 10.1089/tmj.2005.11.608 16250826 · DOI
  15. [21]Zimmerman B.S. Seidman D. Berger N. Cascetta K.P. Nezolosky M. Trlica K. Patient perception of telehealth services for breast and gynecologic oncology care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a single center survey-based study J Breast Cancer 23 2020 542 552 10.4048/jbc.2020.23.e56 33154829 PMC7604367 · DOI
  16. [22]Tasneem S. Kim A. Bagheri A. Lebret J. Telemedicine video visits for patients receiving palliative care: a qualitative study Am J Hosp Palliat Med 36 2019 789 794 10.1177/1049909119846843 31064195 · DOI
  17. [23]Stern A. Valaitis R. Weir R. Jadad A.R. Use of home telehealth in palliative cancer care: a case study J Telemed Telecare 18 2012 297 300 10.1258/jtt.2012.111201 22790013 · DOI
  18. [24]Barsom E.Z. Jansen M. Tanis P.J. van de Ven A.W.H. Blussé van Oud-Alblas M. Buskens C.J. Video consultation during follow up care: effect on quality of care and patient- and provider attitude in patients with colorectal cancer Surg Endosc 35 2021 1278 1287 10.1007/s00464-020-07499-3 32198552 PMC7886764 · DOI
  19. [25]Mooi J.K. Whop L.J. Valery P.C. Sabesan S.S. Teleoncology for Indigenous patients: the responses of patients and health workers Aust J Rural Health 20 2012 265 269 10.1111/j.1440-1584.2012.01302.x 22998201 · DOI · Paper page
  20. [26]Loree J.M. Dau H. Rebić N. Howren A. Gastonguay L. McTaggart-Cowan H. Virtual oncology appointments during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: an international survey of patient perspectives Curr Oncol 28 2021 671 677 10.3390/curroncol28010065 33499380 PMC7924350 · DOI
  21. [27]Rodler S. Apfelbeck M. Schulz G.B. Ivanova T. Buchner A. Staehler M. Telehealth in uro-oncology beyond the pandemic: toll or lifesaver? Eur Urol Focus 6 2020 1097 1103 10.1016/j.euf.2020.05.010 32534969 PMC7286644 · DOI
  22. [28]Gutkin P.M. Prionas N.D. Minneci M.O. Allen E. 3rd Balazy K.E. Rahimy E. Telemedicine in radiation oncology: is it here to stay? Impacts on patient care and resident education Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 108 2020 416 420 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.06.047 32890524 PMC7462793 · DOI
  23. [29]Atreya S. Kumar G. Samal J. Bhattacharya M. Banerjee S. Mallick P. Patients'/caregivers' perspectives on telemedicine service for advanced cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: an exploratory survey Indian J Palliat Care 26 2020 S40 S44 10.4103/IJPC.IJPC_145_20 33088085 PMC7535001 · DOI
  24. [30]Sathiyaraj A. Lopez H. Surapaneni R. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine for prechemotherapy evaluation during the COVID-19 pandemic Future Oncol 17 2021 1593 1600 10.2217/fon-2020-0855 33631995 PMC7909235 · DOI
  25. [31]Pardolesi A. Gherzi L. Pastorino U. Telemedicine for management of patients with lung cancer during COVID-19 in an Italian cancer institute: SmartDoc project Tumori 2021 1 7 10.1177/03008916211012760 33971749 · DOI
  26. [32]Hasson S.P. Waissengrin B. Shachar E. Hodruj M. Fayngor R. Brezis M. Rapid implementation of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives and preferences of patients with cancer Oncologist 26 2021 e679 e685 10.1002/onco.13676 33453121 PMC8013179 · DOI
  27. [38]Bowen G.A. Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note Qual Res 8 2008 137 152 10.1177/1468794107085301 · DOI · Paper page
  28. [39]Fusch P.I. Ness L.R. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research Qual Rep 20 2015 1408 1416 10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281 · DOI · Paper page
  29. [41]Fletcher A.J. Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets method Int J Soc Res Method 20 2017 181 194 10.1080/13645579.2016.1144401 · DOI · Paper page
  30. [42]Roberts J.M. Critical realism, dialectics, and qualitative research methods J Theory Soc Behav 44 2014 1 23 10.1111/jtsb.12056 · DOI
  31. [44]Isautier J.M.J. Copp T. Ayre J. Cvejic E. Meyerowitz-Katz G. Batcup C. People’s experiences and satisfaction with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia: cross-sectional survey study J Med Internet Res 22 2020 e24531 10.2196/24531 PMC7732356 33156806 · DOI
  32. [45]Baile W.F. Buckman R. Lenzi R. Glober G. Beale E.A. Kudelka A.P. SPIKES-a six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer Oncology 5 2000 302 311 10.1634/theoncologist.5-4-302 10964998 · DOI
  33. [46]Wolf I. Waissengrin B. Pelles S. Breaking bad news via telemedicine: a new challenge at times of an epidemic Oncology 25 2020 e879 e880 10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0284 PMC7288637 32304624 · DOI
  34. [47]Vitto C. Del Buono B. Daniel L. Rivet E. Cholyway R. Santen S.A. Teaching toolbox: breaking bad news with virtual technology in the time of COVID J Cancer Educ 2021 10.1007/s13187-021-01975-7 PMC8043776 33851370 · DOI
  35. [48]Rowlands J. Noble S. How does the environment impact on the quality of life of advanced cancer patients? A qualitative study with implications for ward design Palliat Med 22 2008 768 774 10.1177/0269216308093839 18715977 · DOI
  36. [49]te Marvelde L. Wolfe R. McArthur G. Blake L.A. Evans S.M. Decline in cancer pathology notifications during the 2020 COVID-19-related restrictions in Victoria Med J Aust 214 2021 281 283 10.5694/mja2.50968 33624884 PMC8014106 · DOI
  37. [50]Disney L. Mowbray O. Evans D. Telemental health use and refugee mental health providers following COVID-19 pandemic Clin Soc Work J 49 2021 463 470 10.1007/s10615-021-00808-w 33967352 PMC8090514 · DOI
  38. [51]Javanparast S. Roeger L. Kwok Y. Reed R.L. The experience of Australian general practice patients at high risk of poor health outcomes with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study BMC Fam Pract 2021 22 10.1186/s12875-021-01408-w 33832422 PMC8031338 · DOI
  39. [52]Laidsaar-Powell R. Butow P. Bu S. Fisher A. Juraskova I. Oncologists’ and oncology nurses’ attitudes and practices towards family involvement in cancer consultations Eur J Cancer Care 26 2017 e12470 10.1111/ecc.12470 26931469 · DOI
  40. [53]Shin D.W. Cho J. Roter D.L. Kim S.Y. Yang H.K. Park K. Attitudes toward family involvement in cancer treatment decision making: the perspectives of patients, family caregivers, and their oncologists Psycho-Oncol 26 2017 770 778 10.1002/pon.4226 27437905 · DOI
  41. [54]Goldberg E.M. Jiménez F.N. Chen K. Davoodi N.M. Li M. Strauss D.H. Telehealth was beneficial during COVID-19 for older Americans: a qualitative study with physicians J Am Geriatr Soc 69 2021 3034 3043 10.1111/jgs.17370 34245165 PMC8447382 · DOI
  42. [55]Lai A.M. Kaufman D.R. Starren J. Shea S. Evaluation of a remote training approach for teaching seniors to use a telehealth system Int J Med Inf 78 2009 732 744 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.06.005 PMC2757535 19620023 · DOI
  43. [56]Tevaarwerk A.J. Chandereng T. Osterman T. Arafat W. Smerage J. Polubriaginof F.C.G. Oncologist perspectives on telemedicine for patients with cancer: a national comprehensive cancer network survey J Oncol Pract 17 2021 e1318 e1326 10.1200/OP.21.00195 PMC9810123 34264741 · DOI
  44. [57]Rodriguez J.A. Saadi A. Schwamm L.H. Bates D.W. Samal L. Disparities in telehealth use among California patients with limited English proficiency Health Aff 40 2021 487 495 10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00823 33646862 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, S. J., Smith, A. B., Kennett, W., & Vinod, S. K.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Port Macquarie Base Hospital (AU)
  • Liverpool Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Smith, Allan Ben
ORCID
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-10
Volume
105
Issue
10
Pages
3134-3142
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.pec.2022.06.001
PMC
PMC9170274
OpenAlex
W4281958478
Cited by
35
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
6.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Cancer Institute NSW
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › General Dentistry › Dental Research and COVID-19
Keywords
telemedicine, cancer care, COVID-19 pandemic, patient experience, caregiver experiences, clinician experience, technological barriers, rural and urban health services, telehealth implementation
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Adult, Australia, Humans, Neoplasms, Caregivers, Telemedicine, Pandemics

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