A Note on the Effects of Digital Primary Health Care on Utilization: Concepts, Evidence, and Descriptive Analysis of Non-Experimental Register Data from Sweden
Ekman, B.; Thulesius, H.; Wilkens, J.; Arvidsson, E.
Show abstract
Digital technologies for health care may lower costs while enhancing access to services. However, concerns have been raised that digital care may lead to over-use of services and not be as effective as in-person visits. Previous studies have found varying effects across different contexts, study designs, and outcome measures. This study contributes to the emerging evidence on the effects of digital care on primary care utilization by developing a conceptual model for primary care use and then comparing the effects of digital primary care with in-person visits and telephone contacts. Register data from Sweden over a two-year period (2017-2018) in a sample of patients diagnosed with an infection are used to describe the effects. Findings show that the majority of patients require a single consultation across either model of care. A relatively small share of patients makes multiple consultations per episode of care both across and within models of care. Compared with in-person visits and telephone contacts, digital care is associated with fewer consultations per episode of care and involve lower rates of laboratory tests and antibiotic prescriptions. Digital care is provided by a physician to a larger extent compared with the other models of care in the current sample. Further analysis will be conducted to establish any causal effects of digital primary contacts on identified outcomes.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Has the pandemic enhanced and sustained digital health-seeking behaviour? A big data interrupted time-series analysis of Google Trends 93%
- Understanding how the design and implementation of Online Consultations influence primary care outcomes: Systematic review of evidence with recommendations for designers, providers, and researchers 93%
- How the COVID-19 pandemic is favoring the adoption of digital technologies in healthcare: a literature review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Public participation in crisis policymaking. How 30,000 Dutch citizens advised their government on relaxing COVID-19 lockdown measures 93%
- Accuracy of online symptom checkers and the potential impact on service utilisation 92%
- US Primary Care in 2029: A Delphi Survey on the Impact of Machine Learning 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Measure what matters: counts of hospitalized patients are a better metric for health system capacity planning for a reopening 92%
- Gaps in Artificial Intelligence Research for Rural Health in the United States: A Scoping Review 91%
- Using telehealth consultations for healthcare provision to patients from racial/ethnic minorities: A systematic review 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Benefits and Challenges of Using Virtual Primary Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: From Key Lessons to a Framework for Implementation 93%
- Development and preliminary testing of Health Equity Across the AI Lifecycle (HEAAL): A framework for healthcare delivery organizations to mitigate the risk of AI solutions worsening health inequities 91%
- Impact of a pilot mHealth intervention on treatment outcomes of TB patients seeking care in the private sector using Propensity Scores Matching – Evidence collated from New Delhi, India 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Spatio-temporal modelling of referrals to outpatient respiratory clinics in the integrated care system of the Morecambe Bay area, England 93%
- ‘Leading from the front’ implementation strategies increase the success of influenza vaccination drives among healthcare workers: A reanalysis of Systematic Review evidence using Intervention Component Analysis (ICA) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) 91%
- Dissatisfaction with family members’ medical care: the relationship with trust in personal physicians and physicians generally in Japan 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.