Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2026
Perceptions and use of publicly funded episodic virtual care: Cross-sectional survey data from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hasan Emran, Gallant François, Correia Rebecca H, Welton Stephanie, Lapointe-Shaw Lauren, Kiran Tara, Hedden Lindsay, Easley Julie, Austin Nichole, Doucet Shelley, MacNeill A Luke, Luke Alison, Thelen Rachel, Newman Colin, Lavergne M Ruth
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To explore public perceptions of episodic virtual care (EVC) and to identify patient characteristics associated with use of EVC services.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
PARTICIPANTS: Individuals 18 years or older residing in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: EVC perception was assessed by asking whether virtual visits with someone other than a personal family physician or nurse practitioner can meet the day-to-day health needs of patients (emergencies excepted). Usage was determined by asking whether EVC services were used in the past 12 months. Multivariable ordered and binary logistic regression models explored associations between patient characteristics, EVC perception, and EVC use. Agreement with a range of statements reflecting perception of EVC services was described.
RESULTS: Of the 3882 respondents, 56.3% agreed or strongly agreed that EVC could meet their day-to-day health needs, and 46.7% of a representative population panel (n=895) reported using EVC services in the past 12 months. EVC meeting the day-to-day needs of patients was associated with better comfort with technology (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26 to 2.93), trust in the health care system (AOR=4.15, 95% CI 2.40 to 7.18), basic or routine medical needs (AOR=1.82, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.79), and no disability (AOR=1.45, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.11). EVC use was strongly associated with not having a regular family physician or nurse practitioner (AOR=3.41, 95% CI 1.56 to 7.46), and was negatively associated with being an older adult (45 to 54 years: AOR=0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.85; 55 to 64 years: AOR=0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.77) and a rural resident (AOR=0.29, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.59). More than 80% of respondents reported that EVC is suitable or completely suitable for minor short-term health concerns (eg, common cold), prescription renewals, and referrals, whereas less than 50% found it suitable or completely suitable for ongoing health conditions.
CONCLUSION: Findings reflect perceptions that EVC can play a role in meeting primary care needs, particularly among those with less complex medical needs, but current use is most strongly associated with not having a regular primary care clinician.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
PARTICIPANTS: Individuals 18 years or older residing in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: EVC perception was assessed by asking whether virtual visits with someone other than a personal family physician or nurse practitioner can meet the day-to-day health needs of patients (emergencies excepted). Usage was determined by asking whether EVC services were used in the past 12 months. Multivariable ordered and binary logistic regression models explored associations between patient characteristics, EVC perception, and EVC use. Agreement with a range of statements reflecting perception of EVC services was described.
RESULTS: Of the 3882 respondents, 56.3% agreed or strongly agreed that EVC could meet their day-to-day health needs, and 46.7% of a representative population panel (n=895) reported using EVC services in the past 12 months. EVC meeting the day-to-day needs of patients was associated with better comfort with technology (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26 to 2.93), trust in the health care system (AOR=4.15, 95% CI 2.40 to 7.18), basic or routine medical needs (AOR=1.82, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.79), and no disability (AOR=1.45, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.11). EVC use was strongly associated with not having a regular family physician or nurse practitioner (AOR=3.41, 95% CI 1.56 to 7.46), and was negatively associated with being an older adult (45 to 54 years: AOR=0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.85; 55 to 64 years: AOR=0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.77) and a rural resident (AOR=0.29, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.59). More than 80% of respondents reported that EVC is suitable or completely suitable for minor short-term health concerns (eg, common cold), prescription renewals, and referrals, whereas less than 50% found it suitable or completely suitable for ongoing health conditions.
CONCLUSION: Findings reflect perceptions that EVC can play a role in meeting primary care needs, particularly among those with less complex medical needs, but current use is most strongly associated with not having a regular primary care clinician.