The Status Quo of Internet Medical Services in China: A Nationwide Hospital Survey
Wei Zhao,Fan Xu,Xiaolin Diao,Hongxia Li,Xiaodan Lian,Lei Zhang,Lu Yin,Youwen Cui,Yuxin Wang,Shuai Zhao,Ting Shu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2023.0025
2024-01-01
Telemedicine and e-Health
Abstract:Background: Internet medical services (IMS) have been rapidly promoted across China, especially since the outbreak of COVID-19. However, a nationwide study is still lacking.Objective: To unveil the whole picture of IMS across tertiary and secondary hospitals in China, and to evaluate potential influence of the hospital general characteristics, medical staff reserve, and patient visiting capacity on IMS provision.Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted, and 1,995 tertiary and 2,824 secondary hospitals completed questionnaires from 31 administrative regions in China during July 1 and October 31, 2021. Those hospitals are defined having abilities of providing IMS if at least one following service are available: (1) online appointment of diagnoses and treatments; (2) online disease consultation; (3) electronic prescription; and (4) drug delivery. The logistic regression models are used to detect the possible roles on developing IMS.Results: A majority (68.9%) of tertiary hospitals and 53.0% secondary hospitals have provided IMS (p < 0.01). Tertiary hospital also had much higher proportions than secondary hospitals in online appointment of diagnoses and treatments (62.6% vs. 46.1%), online disease consultation (47.3% vs. 16.9%), electronic prescription (33.2% vs. 9.6%), and drug delivery (27.8% vs. 4.6%). In multivariate model, IMS hospitals may be associated significantly with having more licensed doctors (& GE;161 vs. <161: odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 1.13-1.50; p < 0.01), having more frequency of registration appointments (& GE;3,356 vs. <3,356: OR, 1.77; 1.54-2.03; p < 0.01), having higher frequency of patient follow-ups (& GE;1,160 vs. <1,160: OR, 1.36; 1.15-1.61; p < 0.01), having laboratory test appointments (Yes vs. No: OR, 1.25; 1.06-1.48; p = 0.01), and having treatment appointments (Yes vs. No: OR, 1.27; 1.11-1.46; p < 0.01) in the past 3 months.Conclusions: The coverage of IMS is appreciable in China, but the IMS market is still greatly extended and improved. The provision of IMS depends primarily on the scales of the hospitals, including medical staff reserve and patient visiting capacity.