TY - JOUR AU - Sakakibara, Koichi AU - Shigemi, Daisuke AU - Toriumi, Rena AU - Ota, Ai AU - Michihata, Nobuaki AU - Yasunaga, Hideo PY - 2022 DA - 2022/9/23 TI -基于日本远程医疗服务用户数据的妇产科远程医疗中聊天信息、语音呼叫或视频呼叫后的急诊就诊和住院情况:横断面研究乔- J地中海互联网Res SP - e35643六世24 - 9千瓦-电子健康KW -妇科KW -聊天信息KW -移动健康KW - mHealth千瓦产科KW -安全KW -远程医疗KW -远程医疗KW -视频通话KW -语音电话AB -背景:在产科和妇科实践,通过聊天信息同步远程医疗服务,语音通话和视频通话越来越具备改善病人的医疗保健的可访问性和临床结果。然而，不同通讯工具的临床结果差异仍然未知，特别是在安全性方面。目的:比较不同通信工具(聊天信息、语音通话和视频通话)远程医疗服务后急诊和住院的发生率。方法:我们收集了2019年1月1日至2020年12月31日期间通过日本远程医疗咨询服务(Sanfujin-ka Online)咨询专业医生和助产士的妇女的产科和妇科问题的数据。结果是急诊或会诊后夜间住院。采用卡方检验和多变量logistic回归分析比较通过聊天信息、语音通话和视频通话接受远程医疗服务的组间的临床结果。结果:本研究共纳入3635名受试者。参与者的平均年龄为31.4岁(SD 5.7)，最大年龄组(n=2154, 59.3%)为30-39岁。通过聊天信息、语音电话和视频电话接受远程医疗服务的人数(或比例)分别为1584人(43.5%)、1947人(53.6%)和104人(2.9%)。 The overall incidence of the outcome was 0.7% (26/3635), including 10 (0.3%) cases of chat message, 16 (0.5%) cases of voice calls, and no video calls. There were no emergency visits that happened due to inappropriate advice. No significant difference in the proportions of the outcomes was observed between the communication tools (P=.55). The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant differences in the outcome between those who used chat message and those who used voice calls (odds ratio 1.63, 95% CI 0.73-3.65). Conclusions: The communication tools of telehealth services in obstetrics and gynecology did not show a significant difference in terms of emergency visits or hospitalizations after using the service. SN - 1438-8871 UR - //www.mybigtv.com/2022/9/e35643 UR - https://doi.org/10.2196/35643 UR - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36149744 DO - 10.2196/35643 ID - info:doi/10.2196/35643 ER -