Uptake of telehealth services by people recovering from road trauma in Victoria,Australia

Abstract

Introduction

In recent years, injury insurers in Australia have introduced compensation cover for services delivered via telehealth. The aim of this study was to investigate the uptake of telehealth services by people recovering from road trauma in Victoria, Australia, and the characteristics of participants accessing these services.

Methods

All Victorian State Trauma Registry and Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry cases, aged ≥16 years, who sustained transport-related injury from March to August 2020, and were linked with the Transport Accident Commission claims dataset, were included in this registry-based cohort study. The primary outcome was the uptake of services accessed in-person and via telehealth.

Results

Within 12 months of injury, 413 participants accessed 93,035 services, with 1432 of these via telehealth (1.5%). Seventy-five percent of family counselling, 26% of psychology and 7% of medical consultations were accessed via telehealth. For telehealth users, a greater proportion had worked/studied prior to injury, met major trauma criteria, and were discharged to inpatient rehabilitation, compared to non-users. For participants with no telehealth use, a greater proportion were discharged home, and were classified as ‘rapid recovery’ clients.

Conclusions

While telehealth uptake was low during the study period, it was accessed by people with more severe injuries. There was also greater telehealth uptake during some of Victoria's strictest COVID-19 lockdowns. Telehealth may continue to be an appealing option for medical and psychological services into the future, and may assist with return to work following transport injury.

Keywords

Wounds and injuries telemedicine COVID-19 rehabilitation transport injury telehealth telerehabilitation

Introduction

‘Telehealth’ refers to telecommunications and information technologies used to share information, and provide clinical care, education, public health, and administrative services at a distance.¹ Telehealth has previously been identified as a possible solution for addressing health care access issues for people recovering from trauma.² Yet, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic few major trauma survivors reported accessing health care and rehabilitation services via telehealth.³ This was despite evidence that, following injury, people living in rural and remote areas, who experienced barriers to community mobility or reported significant work commitments and/or carer responsibilities had limited access to in-person specialist health care and unmet rehabilitation needs.^4–6

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid policy shift regarding the provision of services via telehealth for many health insurers and injury compensation schemes. To ensure continuity of care for their clients, these organisations were compelled to quickly introduce and/or extend telehealth billing codes.⁷ Research on telehealth also rapidly expanded during and after the pandemic.^7–9 However, to date, there has been little research on telehealth access and uptake specifically conducted with people recovering from road trauma.⁶

In Victoria, Australia's second most populous state, the Transport Accident Commission (TAC), Victoria's ‘no-fault’ insurance scheme for people with transport injuries,¹⁰ introduced telehealth billing codes at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This policy change enabled the current research, which aimed to investigate (i) the uptake of telehealth services by people recovering from road trauma in Victoria, Australia and (ii) the characteristics of participants accessing services via telehealth.

Methods

Data sources

The registry-based cohort study used linked data from the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR), the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry (VOTOR) and the TAC claims dataset. The study was approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (project ID 30416) and is reported according to the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology checklist.¹¹

The VSTR is a population-based registry that includes all major trauma patients from all trauma-receiving hospitals in the state of Victoria, Australia.¹² Major trauma is defined as any of the following criteria being met: (i) death after injury; (ii) an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 12; (iii) admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) > 24 h and requiring mechanical ventilation for at least part of the ICU stay; or (iv) urgent surgery (within 24 h of injury).

The VOTOR is a sentinel site registry collecting data from four hospitals in Victoria; two adult major trauma services, one metropolitan trauma service, and one regional trauma service.¹³ The VOTOR captures data on all adult (≥16 years) patients with an emergency admission (>24 h) to the participating hospital for an orthopaedic injury.

The TAC provides people with transport-related injury in Victoria access to statutory benefits for a variety of services, including healthcare and income replacement, regardless of fault.¹⁴ TAC claims data are collected to support claims management processes and improve understanding of healthcare utilisation, costs and outcomes of transport related injury cases. TAC claims data are routinely provided to VSTR and VOTOR for the purposes of research.

Participants and recruitment

All VSTR and VOTOR cases, aged ≥16 years, who sustained their injury via a transport-related event between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2020, were included. This timeframe was chosen to capture the period after the introduction of TAC telehealth billing codes (March 2020). Transport-related events included motor vehicle, motorcycle, bicycle, pedestrian and other transport incidents. Any VSTR or VOTOR cases unable to be definitively linked within the TAC claims database were excluded. The VSTR and VOTOR use an opt-out process for inclusion. Any individual who opts out of the registry is completely removed, with no details retained, and therefore cannot be included in any analysis or research. Clients of the TAC agree to the TAC collecting data related to their claim, and this includes acknowledgement that the data will be used for research purposes.

Data collection

Data linkage of VSTR/VOTOR data with TAC claims data was performed by the TAC. Demographics, injury event details, diagnoses, in-hospital outcomes and 12-month survival rates were extracted from the VSTR and VOTOR for this study. Claims data were made available up to 12 months following the date of initial injury; that is, claims data were extracted up to 31 August 2021. Claims data included all services paid for by the TAC for all included clients, described according to the service date, type and cost of service, and whether the service was delivered via telehealth. The TAC division for each client was also provided (Rapid Recovery, Supported Recovery, and Independence). Rapid recovery is a division for clients with low healthcare and support needs who usually recover within six months. Supported recovery is a division for clients with more complex needs, such as persistent pain or mental health conditions. Independence is a division for clients who have sustained significant life-altering injuries, such as severe traumatic brain injury or spinal cord injury, who require multiple supports and long-term compensation.

Data analysis

To determine the uptake of telehealth services, the total number of services (i.e., telehealth and in-person consultations) per month, from the period of March 2020 to August 2021, were summarised as frequencies and percentages, and plotted, relative to the month of service access. The utilisation of telehealth across a variety of service types, including allied health or medical services, up to 12 months post-injury, was presented as frequencies and percentages.

Participants were categorised according to whether they had any telehealth use, defined as using at least one telehealth service within 12 months of injury, or no-use of telehealth within 12-months of injury. To compare differences in baseline characteristics between groups, continuous variables were expressed as means (standard deviation) or medians (interquartile range (IQR)) where relevant, while categorical variables were expressed as frequencies (percentages). Chi-square tests for categorical variables, and univariable linear regression modelling for continuous variables, were used to explore differences in participant characteristics between telehealth users and non-users. Where appropriate, generalised linear regression modelling with a gamma distribution and log link was used to overcome skewness associated with variables.¹⁵ Statistical significance was indicated with a two-sided p-value <.05. All statistical analyses were completed in STATA version 17 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas).

Results

Participants

Of the 426 VSTR/VOTOR cases with a date of injury between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2020, 414 survived to hospital discharge and 413 accessed at least one service (i.e. one consultation) within 12 months of injury (Figure 1). The 12-month survival of participants was 99% for telehealth users, and 97% for the telehealth non-users (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Participant flow chart. VSTR, Victorian State Trauma Registry; VOTOR, Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry.

Telehealth uptake

Within 12 months of injury, 413 participants accessed a total of 93,035 services, with 1432 of these accessed via telehealth (1.5%). Figure 2 presents the percentage of in-person and telehealth services, according to the month of service access. The highest proportion of service access via telehealth was in September 2020 (5.2% of all services).

Figure 2.

Percentage of in-person and telehealth services accessed by month.

Overall, participants accessed nine service types via telehealth within the first 12 months of injury (Table 1). For these nine service types, 6.3% of all consultations were via telehealth. In total, 75% of family counselling, 26% of psychology and 7% of medical consultations were accessed via telehealth.

Table 1.

Telehealth and in-person services for the nine service types accessed via telehealth during the study period.

Service type	Total services n	Telehealth services n (%)	In-person services n (%)
Medical consultation	9110	657 (7.2)	8453 (92.8)
Physiotherapy	8903	281 (3.2)	8622 (96.8)
Occupational therapy	2174	136 (6.3)	2038 (93.7)
Psychiatry	1100	27 (2.5)	1073 (97.5)
Psychology	1066	272 (25.5)	794 (74.5)
Speech therapy	129	10 (7.8)	119 (92.2)
Social work	54	5 (9.3)	49 (90.7)
Family counselling	51	38 (74.5)	13 (25.5)
Dietetics	26	6 (23.1)	20 (76.9)
Total	22,613	1432 (6.3)	21,181 (93.7)

Participants with any telehealth use within 12 months of injury (n = 192) used a median (IQR) of 4 (1 to 10) telehealth and 248 (117 to 446) non-telehealth services, and those with no telehealth use within 12 months of injury (n = 214) used a median of 69 (40 to 135) non-telehealth services (Table 2).

Table 2.

Distribution of telehealth and in-person service access for telehealth users and non-users (n = 406).

Service accessed	Telehealth users (n = 192)	Non-users (n = 214)
Telehealth service
Median (IQR)	4 (1–10)	N/A
Range	1–45
In-person service
Median (IQR)	248 (117–446)	69 (40–135)
Range	17–1179	1–861

IQR: interquartile range.

Participant characteristics according to telehealth access

The characteristics of participants, according to telehealth use, are presented in Table 3. There were notable associations between telehealth use and certain characteristics. For clients with any telehealth use, a higher proportion had worked/studied prior to injury (p < .05), met VSTR (major trauma) criteria (p < .05), had head/other injuries and chest/abdominal/other injuries (p < .01), were discharged to inpatient rehabilitation (p < .001) and were classified as supported recovery or independence (p < .001), compared to clients with no telehealth use. Clients who used telehealth also had a higher average ISS (p < .001), ICU length of stay (p < .01) and hospital length of stay (p < .01), than clients with no telehealth use. For participants with no telehealth use, a higher proportion experienced multitrauma/other injury, were discharged home, and were classified as ‘rapid recovery’ compared to participants who used telehealth. There was no association between telehealth use and age group, sex, speaking a language other than English, living in regional or remote areas, or level of socio-economic (dis)advantage.

Table 3.

Characteristics of telehealth users and non-users (who survived to 12 months post-injury, n = 406).

Characteristic (n, %)	Telehealth users (n = 192)	Non-users (n = 214)	Total (n = 406)	p-value
Mean age in years (SD)	43.7 (17.4)	43.6 (20.3)	43.7 (19.0)	.967
Age group				.124
15–24 years	33 (17.2%)	44 (20.6%)	77 (19.0%)
25–34 years	36 (18.8%)	49 (22.9%)	85 (21.0%)
35–44 years	29 (15.1%)	24 (11.2%)	53 (13.1%)
45–54 years	44 (22.9%)	32 (15.0%)	76 (18.7%)
55–64 years	18 (9.4%)	20 (9.4%)	38 (9.4%)
65–74 years	24 (12.5%)	24 (11.2%)	48 (11.8%)
75–84 years	7 (3.7%)	15 (7.0%)	22 (5.4%)
85+ years	<5	6 (2.8%)	7 (1.7%)
Male sex	133 (69.3%)	166 (77.6%)	299 (73.7%)	.058
Non-English-speaking background	5 (2.6%)	9 (4.2%)	14 (3.5%)	.377
Worked/studied prior^a	119 (69.6%)	104 (56.8%)	223 (63.0%)	.013
Regional/remote status^b				.685
Major cities	131 (69.3%)	148 (71.2%)	279 (70.3%)
Inner regional	44 (23.3%)	49 (23.6%)	93 (23.4%)
Outer regional/remote	14 (7.4%)	11 (5.3%)	25 (6.3%)
IRSAD (quintiles)^c				.422
1 (Most disadvantaged)	38 (19.8%)	51 (23.8%)	89 (21.9%)
2	44 (22.9%)	36 (16.8%)	80 (19.7%)
3	34 (17.7%)	44 (20.6%)	78 (19.2%)
4	40 (20.8%)	35 (16.4%)	75 (18.5%)
5 (Most advantaged)	33 (17.2%)	43 (20.1%)	76 (18.7%)
Registry patient				.021
VSTR (major trauma)	135 (70.3%)	127 (59.4%)	262 (64.5%)
VOTOR only	57 (26.7%)	87 (40.6%)	144 (35.5%)
Median injury severity score^d (n = 262) (IQR)	17 (13–27)	14 (10–20)	14 (12–22)	<.001
Injury group				.005
Isolated head injury	<5	<5	6 (1.5%)
Head/other	27 (14.1%)	14 (6.5%)	41 (10.1%)
Spinal cord	5 (2.6%)	<5	6 (1.5%)
Orthopaedic injuries only	28 (14.6%)	26 (12.2%)	54 (13.3%)
Chest/abdominal/other	16 (8.3%)	10 (4.7%)	26 (6.4%)
Multi-trauma/other	112 (58.3%)	161 (75.2%)	273 (67.2%)
Cause of injury				.516
Motor vehicle driver	58 (30.2%)	79 (36.9%)	137 (33.7%)
Motor vehicle passenger	16 (8.3%)	21 (9.8%)	37 (9.1%)
Motorcycle	64 (33.3%)	62 (29.0%)	126 (31.0%)
Pedal cyclist	23 (12.0%)	23 (10.8%)	46 (11.3%)
Pedestrian	28 (14.6%)	23 (10.8%)	51 (12.6%)
Other	<5	6 (2.8%)	9 (2.2%)
Intent				.361
Non-intentional	179 (93.2%)	204 (95.3%)	383 (94.3%)
Intentional/other	13 (6.8%)	10 (4.7%)	23 (5.7%)
Place of injury				.909
Street/highway	167 (87.0%)	186 (86.9%)	353 (87.0%)
Home	< 5	<5	7 (1.7%)
Workplace	9 (4.7%)	9 (4.2%)	18 (4.4%)
Other	12 (6.3%)	16 (7.5%)	28 (6.9%)
Median LOS (IQR)
ICU	0 (0–2)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–1)	.007
Hospital	5.9 (3.2–11.4)	4.3 (2.1–7.9)	4.9 (2.7–9.4)	.001
Discharge destination				<.001
Home	99 (51.6%)	169 (79.0%)	268 (66.0%)
Rehabilitation	87 (45.3%)	39 (18.2%)	126 (31.0%)
Other	6 (3.1%)	6 (2.8%)	12 (3.0%)
Division type				<.001
Rapid recovery	77 (40.1%)	155 (72.4%)	232 (57.1%)
Supported recovery	79 (41.2%)	49 (22.9%)	128 (31.5%)
Independence	27 (14.1%)	5 (2.3%)	32 (7.9%)
Scheme performance	9 (4.7%)	5 (2.3%)	14 (3.5%)

IRSAD: Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage; VSTR: Victorian State Trauma Registry; VOTOR: Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry; IQR: interquartile range; ICU: intensive care unit; LOS: Length of stay; SD: standard deviation.

missing n = 52.

missing n = 9.

missing n = 8.

missing n = 4.

Discussion

Telehealth billing codes were introduced by Victoria's TAC in March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁰ This new mode of service delivery within the TAC enabled an evaluation of the uptake of telehealth services by people recovering from road trauma and the characteristics of participants according to whether or not they accessed services via telehealth. Key findings were that, while telehealth uptake was low during the study period, it was accessed by people with more severe injuries. There was also greater telehealth uptake during some of Victoria's strictest COVID-19 lockdown periods (i.e. September 2020).

The low uptake of service use via telehealth during the study period suggests that participants continued to mainly access health care services in-person. This was an unexpected finding, given the restrictions in place in Victoria at the time which stipulated that health care providers could only see patients in-person if they assessed the patient to be at risk of significant change or deterioration in functional independence, necessitating escalation of care.¹⁶ It is possible that, because of the severity of injuries in this cohort, in-person services were still deemed necessary to avoid functional deterioration throughout the pandemic.

Previous research has also indicated that individuals with greater physical and cognitive impairments, such as those included in this study, can be hard to assess and treat via telehealth, owing to reduced communication capacity, lower digital literacy, the need for support to set up and use telehealth, and safety concerns.^17,18 Therefore, telehealth uptake may have been higher in a less seriously injured cohort. The minimal uptake of telehealth in this cohort may have also resulted from restricting the study period to the first 12 months of injury. In previous research, new patients were reported to be harder to assess and treat via telehealth compared to long-standing patients where there was already established rapport with the treating clinician.⁹

There were some notable differences in the types of services delivered in-person compared to via telehealth. Out of all psychology consultations during the study period, over a quarter were accessed via telehealth, compared to only 3% of physiotherapy services. These findings are supported by previous research, which reported that telehealth was feasible and effective for ‘talking therapies’, including psychology, whereas this mode of service delivery was more challenging for conducting comprehensive equipment, and other physical, assessments and treatments.^8,19 There were also a high number of medical consultations accessed via telehealth which is also supported by previous qualitative research with this cohort, where telehealth was reported to work well for medical appointments, especially quick reviews, referrals, and prescription renewals.¹⁹

In comparing the characteristics of telehealth users and non-users, there were some notable differences. Telehealth users were the most severely injured group and also accessed a higher median number of services overall during the study period, compared to telehealth non-users. Therefore, rather than preferring telehealth to in-person services, telehealth users may have had a greater need for healthcare services, in general, than clients who did not use telehealth.

Telehealth users had also more commonly worked or studied prior to injury than non-users. Given these factors, and consistent with qualitative findings, telehealth users may have had additional work responsibilities, making telehealth a more convenient option than in-person appointments.^6,19 Thus, provision of services via telehealth may assist with return to work following transport injury as patients may need less time off work to attend medical appointments. In addition, given their work/study status, it is possible that telehealth users were more digitally or health literate and therefore, more willing and able to engage with services via telehealth. Despite telehealth access reportedly being influenced by language proficiency, geographic factors and digital literacy,^2,18,20 we found no differences between groups based on having a non-English-speaking background, living in regional or remote areas or level of socio-economic (dis)advantage. However, case numbers were small across groups and, with a larger cohort, differences in these characteristics may have been observed.

To our knowledge, this is the largest study of telehealth uptake in a sample of people recovering from road trauma, and includes a population-level, representative sample of this cohort. However, there are a number of limitations in the current study that are important to consider when interpreting the findings. Firstly, while the follow-up period was standardised across participants by restricting analysis to the first 12 months post-injury, it was not possible to determine participants’ date of discharge from inpatient care (including rehabilitation). Therefore, some participants may have been inpatients during part of their 12-month follow-up period, and not receiving services in the community during this time, thus limiting the number of telehealth services accessed. In addition, the primary analysis cohort was restricted to people with a date of injury from March to August 2020, during a period of COVID-19 lockdown. Therefore, findings are not necessarily generalisable to periods beyond this timeframe. However, there is recent evidence to suggest that post-pandemic, telehealth continues to be widely used, particularly in primary care settings.^21,22 Patients have reported continued benefit of using telehealth since the pandemic for certain types of services, such as reviews and referrals.¹⁹ Furthermore, in many countries, including Australia, changes to compensation and public healthcare funding schemes for telehealth services have been maintained.²³ It can therefore be surmised that the COVID-19 pandemic acted as the catalyst for a permanent shift towards improved provision and uptake of telehealth worldwide, a change which has long been called-for.²⁴

Conclusion

Telehealth has previously been identified as a possible solution for addressing health care access issues for people recovering from serious transport injury. Telehealth uptake was relatively low for people recovering from road trauma during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, telehealth was mainly used for medical and psychological services, by people with more severe injuries, and by those who had worked/studied prior to injury. This suggests that telehealth may continue to be an appealing option for certain services into the future, and may assist with return to work following road trauma.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Transport Accident Commission (Grant No. T047). BG was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (APP 2009998). The Victorian State Trauma Registry is funded by the Victorian Department of Health and the TAC. The Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry is funded by the TAC.

ORCID iDs

Christina L. Ekegren

Belinda J. Gabbe

References

Totten

Womack

Eden

, et al. Telehealth: Mapping the Evidence for Patient Outcomes From Systematic Reviews. 2016. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2016.

Keeves

Braaf

Ekegren

, et al. Access to healthcare following serious injury: perspectives of allied health professionals in urban and regional settings. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 1230.

Stolwyk

RJLN

Giummarra

Olver

, et al. Development of a New Health Service Delivery Model for Major Trauma Clients Living in Rural and Remote Victoria. 2020. Melbourne, Australia.

Keeves

Braaf

Ekegren

, et al. Caring for people with serious injuries in urban and regional communities: a qualitative investigation of healthcare providers’ perceptions. Disabil Rehabil 2021; 43: 3052–3060.

Jeyathevan

Catharine Craven

Cameron

, et al. Facilitators and barriers to supporting individuals with spinal cord injury in the community: experiences of family caregivers and care recipients. Disabil Rehabil 2020; 42: 1844–1854.

Shiner

Vratsistas-Curto

Bramah

, et al. Assessing unmet rehabilitation needs and the feasibility of a telehealth rehabilitation consultation service for road trauma survivors recently discharged from hospital. Disabil Rehabil 2021; 44: 3795–3804.

Taylor

Caffery

Gesesew

, et al. How Australian health care services adapted to telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey of telehealth professionals. Frontiers in Public Health 2021; 9: 648009.

Phimphasone-Brady

Chiao

Karamsetti

, et al. Clinician and staff perspectives on potential disparities introduced by the rapid implementation of telehealth services during COVID-19: a mixed-methods analysis. Translational Behavioral Medicine 2021; 11: 1339–1347.

Bennell

Lawford

Metcalf

, et al. Physiotherapists and patients report positive experiences overall with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study. Journal of Physiotherapy 2021; 67: 201–209.

10.

Transport Accident Commission. Telehealth Fees. https://www.tac.vic.gov.au/providers/invoicing-and-fees/fee-schedule/telehealth-allied-health-providers (2020, accessed 1/11/2022).

11.

von Elm

Altman

Egger

, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 344–349.

12.

Victorian State Trauma Outcomes Registry and Monitoring Group (VSTORM). Victorian State Trauma Registry Annual Report 2020–2021. https://www.monash.edu/medicine/sphpm/vstorm (2022, accessed 1/11/2022).

13.

Devlin

Beck

Hart

, et al. Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry (VOTOR) Annual Report. https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/2682286/388970_votor_report19_20_xray_05.09.21.pdf (2021, accessed 1/11/2022).

14.

Transport Accident Commission. About the TAC. https://www.tac.vic.gov.au/about-the-tac (2022, accessed 1/11/2022).

15.

Malehi

Pourmotahari

Angali

. Statistical models for the analysis of skewed healthcare cost data: a simulation study. Health Econ Rev 2015; 5: 11.

16.

Department of Health and Human Services. Updates about the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/coronavirus/updates (2020, accessed 31 October 2022).

17.

Johnsson

Bulkeley

. Practitioner and service user perspectives on the rapid shift to teletherapy for individuals on the autism spectrum as a result of COVID-19. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 11812.

18.

Graham

Boland

Jones

, et al. Stakeholder perspectives of the sociotechnical requirements of a telehealth wheelchair assessment service in Aotearoa/New Zealand: a qualitative analysis. Aust Occup Ther J 2022; 69(3): 279–289.

19.

Ekegren

Clark-Ash

Callaway

, et al. Perspectives of telehealth access and implementation in people recovering from serious transport injury, health care providers and compensation system staff during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. Injury 2023; 54(10): 110987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2023.110987

20.

Fernandes

Devan

Fioratti

, et al. At my own pace, space, and place: a systematic review of qualitative studies of enablers and barriers to telehealth interventions for people with chronic pain. Pain 2022; 163: e165–e181.

21.

Ndwabe

Basu

Mohammed

. Post pandemic analysis on comprehensive utilization of telehealth and telemedicine. Clinical eHealth 2024; 7: 5–14.

22.

Ashley

Williams

Dennis

, et al. Telehealth’s future in Australian primary health care: a qualitative study exploring lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic. BJGP Open 2023; 7: BJGPO.2022.0117.

23.

OECD. The Future of Telemedicine after COVID-19. 2023. Paris: OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, 2013.

24.

Gill

A National Telehealth Strategy for Australia. https://globalaccesspartners.org/ancceh_telehealth_paper.pdf (2011, accessed 3 March 2020).