Telemedicine in oncology: an effective alternative?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62954/cy31r624Keywords:
Telemedicine, Neoplasms, Patient satisfaction, Teleoncology, Quality of careAbstract
Introduction: Telemedicine has emerged as an effective alternative to expand access to oncology care, particularly for patients facing geographic barriers or physical limitations. However, it remains unclear whether telemedicine provides patient satisfaction levels comparable to those of in-person care. This study aimed to compare overall satisfaction between patients treated in person and those treated via telemedicine, at a private cancer center in the State of Puebla, Mexico, using the Spanish version of the PSQ-18 questionnaire.
Methods: We conducted an observational, comparative, cross-sectional study at a private oncology center in Puebla, Mexico. We included adults (≥18 years) with solid or hematologic malignancies who received care exclusively through one modality (in-person or telemedicine) and completed the PSQ-18 questionnaire were included. Global and subscale scores were compared between modalities. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega.
Results: A total of 40 questionnaires were analyzed (in-person n=30; telemedicine n=10). The in-person group was older (58.2±8.3 vs 49.6±16.3 years; p=0.035). The telemedicine group showed a higher proportion of patients with higher education (90% vs 33.3%; p=0.003), longer follow-up, and a greater number of consultations (p<0.001). Overall satisfaction was high and similar in both groups. In-person visits achieved higher scores in technical quality and interpersonal manner, whereas telemedicine scored higher for time spent with the physician. No differences between-groups were observed for communication, financial aspects, or accessibility/convenience. Internal consistency was moderate (α=0.666; ω=0.685).
Conclusion: Telemedicine achieved overall satisfaction comparable to in-person care, with domain-specific differences. These findings support hybrid care models tailored to the clinical and sociodemographic profile of oncology patients.
References
1. Gupta R, Gamad RS, Bansod P. Telemedicine: a brief analysis. Cogent Eng. 2014;1(1):966459. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2014.966459
2. Ramirez Oviedo GA, Ortiz Quiñones ZY, Andrade Diaz KV. Telesalud y telemedicina: un viaje a través de la investigación bibliométrica en salud. Revista Espacios. 2025;46(2):213-231. doi: https://doi.org/10.48082/espacios-a25v46n02p17
3. Pascual-de la Pisa B, García-Lozano MJ, González-Lama J. Aspectos legales de la telemedicina. FMC. 2021;28(10):544-550. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fmc.2021.02.010
4. Secretaría de Salud. Aviso de Cancelación del Proyecto de Norma Oficial Mexicana PROY-NOM-036-SSA3-2015, para la regulación de la atención médica a distancia, publicado para consulta pública en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 21 de diciembre de 2015. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 2018 abr 27.
5. Kermani F, Orooji A, Sheikhtaheri A. Teleoncology for children with cancer: a scoping review on applications and outcomes. Int J Med Inform. 2020;139:104118. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104118
6. Sirintrapun SJ, Lopez AM. Telemedicine in cancer care. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018;38:540-545. doi: https://doi.org/10.1200/EDBK_200141
7. Jhaveri D, Larkins S, Kelly J, Sabesan S. Remote chemotherapy supervision model for rural cancer care: perspectives of health professionals. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2016;25(1):93-98. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12309
8. Worster B, Swartz K. Telemedicine and palliative care: an increasing role in supportive oncology. Curr Oncol Rep. 2017;19(6):37. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-017-0600-y
9. Melton L, Brewer B, Kolva E, Joshi T, Bunch M. Increasing access to care for young adults with cancer: results of a quality-improvement project using a novel telemedicine approach to supportive group psychotherapy. Palliat Support Care. 2017;15(2):176-180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951516000572
10. Hajesmaeel-Gohari S, Bahaadinbeigy K. The most used questionnaires for evaluating telemedicine services. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021;21(1):36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-021-01407-y
11. Thayaparan AJ, Mahdi E. The Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form (PSQ-18) as an adaptable, reliable, and validated tool for use in various settings. Med Educ Online. 2013;18:21747. doi: https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v18i0.21747
12. Tselapedi-Sekeitto B, Rocha T, Sowerby LJ, Rotenberg B, Biadsee A. Telemedicine as an environmental ally: the social, financial, and environmental impact of virtual care in the otolaryngology clinic. Am J Otolaryngol. 2023;44(2):103791. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2023.103791
13. Russo JE, McCool RR, Davies L. VA telemedicine: an analysis of cost and time savings. Telemed J E Health. 2016;22(3):209-215. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2015.0055
14. Zanaboni P, Scalvini S, Bernocchi P, Borghi G, Tridico C, Masella C. Teleconsultation service to improve healthcare in rural areas: acceptance, organizational impact and appropriateness. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:238. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-238
15. Ebbert JO, Ramar P, Tulledge-Scheitel SM, Njeru JW, Rosedahl JK, Roellinger D, et al. Patient preferences for telehealth services in a large multispecialty practice. J Telemed Telecare. 2023;29(4):298-303. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X20980302
16. Moulaei K, Sheikhtaheri A, Fatehi F, Shanbehzadeh M, Bahaadinbeigy K. Patients’ perspectives and preferences toward telemedicine versus in-person visits: a mixed-methods study on 1226 patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2023;23(1):261. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-023-02348-4
17. Marshall GN, Hays RD. The Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short-Form (PSQ-18). Santa Monica (CA): RAND Corporation; 1994. Report No.: P-7865.
18. Viechtbauer W, Smits L, Kotz D, Budé L, Spigt M, Serroyen J, et al. A simple formula for the calculation of sample size in pilot studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(11):1375-1379. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.04.014
19. Gajarawala SN, Pelkowski JN. Telehealth benefits and barriers. J Nurse Pract. 2021;17(2):218-221. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2020.09.013
20. Barney A, Mendez-Contreras S, Hills NK, Buckelew SM, Raymond-Flesch M. Telemedicine in an adolescent and young adult medicine clinic: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):680. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09634-x
21. Cui F, Zhang X, He X, Liu D, Shi J, Ye M, et al. Clinical applications of telemedicine services using a regional telemedicine platform for cancer treatment: a cross-sectional study. BMC Cancer. 2024;24(1):808. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12563-5
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Iván Romarico González Espinoza, Víctor Daniel Ordoñez Flores, Abraham Castro Ponce, Edgar Martínez Romero, Dra. Lisseth Guevara Vázquez, Gabriela Juárez Salazar, Galo Ismael Iñíguez López, Silvia Ávila Hernández, Lissett Barucha Salazar Villanueva, Dr. Farid Alejandro Carrasco Gutiérrez (Autor/a)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
