Adam J. Gadzinski, MD, MS, on the Limitations of a Study Assessing the Impact of Telemedicine on Patient-Reported Outcomes

Video

Study results revealed the impact of a rurally focused telemedicine program on patient outcomes.

Study results presented at the Society of Urologic Oncology 21st Annual Meeting determined the impact of a rurally focused telemedicine program on patient outcomes in the urologic oncology outpatient clinic at the University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC).

Through their research, the investigators determined that telemedicine provides a medium for cancer care delivery that eliminates the significant travel burden associated with in-person clinic appointments.

In an interview with CancerNetwork®, Adam J. Gadzinski, MD, MS, urologic oncology fellow and acting instructor of Urologic Oncology at the Urology Clinic at UWMC, explained the limitations of the study.

Transcription:

One of the limitations is that the survey was completed by roughly 42% of patients who were eligible for the survey. [Therefore], one limitation is [that] we don’t know what those other 58% of people thought; maybe they were the ones that hated telemedicine.

One of the other potential limitations is that we did not send the survey to patients who had what we called a “failed telemedicine visit”, or patients who were scheduled for telemedicine and then it didn't work and we had to call them on the phone. When we designed the study, we did not plan to include that group. We have kept track of who those patients were, but they did not systematically receive surveys. That’s another limitation and we don't know what the “failed telemedicine” patient-reported outcomes would be. I suspect they’d be a little less enthused about their visit.

We are planning to compare the patient characteristics of those who had a failed telemedicine visit versus a successful one. We haven’t done that yet, but that’s [on] one of our many to-do lists for the subsequent studies.

Related Videos
Jorge E. Cortes, MD, emphasizes proper communication between patients with chronic myeloid leukemia and their providers during the treatment course.
Dietary interventions or other medications may help mitigate diarrhea in patients who undergo therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia.
Whether CAR T-cell therapy or T-cell engagers should dominate the multiple myeloma landscape may be hard to determine, says David S. Siegel, MD.
Next steps for research in the multiple myeloma space may include the development of novel CAR T-cell strategies and bispecific antibodies.
Ongoing research may clarify the potential benefit of avelumab when administered in combination with other agents in advanced urothelial carcinoma.
Spatial analyses may help determine factors that influence responses to sacituzumab govitecan-containing regimens in urothelial carcinoma.
Adverse effects associated with oral azacitidine in low- or intermediate-risk MDS are typically transient, according to Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS.
Attending educational sessions may help with understanding how to manage toxicities associated with enfortumab vedotin in rare genitourinary cancers.
Ongoing genomic profiling analyses in the ASC4FIRST trial may further determine which patients with CML may benefit from treatment with asciminib.
Byoung Chul Cho, MD, PhD, highlights ongoing trials assessing intravenous and subcutaneous amivantamab in EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer.
Related Content