Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Telemedicine (TM) is increasingly recognised as a valuable tool in the management of interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). Despite its potential, its integration and application still remain limited. Our work aimed to assess pulmonologists' (physicians and trainees) perception regarding the use of TM in ILDs management.
Methods: This national survey was created and distributed to all pulmonologists, both physicians and trainees, affiliated with Società Italiana di Pneumologia/Italian Respiratory Society (SIP/IRS). Responses were collected anonymously and analysed by using descriptive statistical analysis and the chi-square test. Results: Among 2,906 invited participants, 44 completed the survey. While 95.5% of respondents considered TM useful in ILDs monitoring, only 36% reported its use in clinical practice. Current barriers included reduced availability of TM services (64%) and limited knowledge of TM software (56.8%). Moreover, the majority of participants referred a supportive but not substitutive role of TM in-person consultations, especially in monitoring and patient education. A significant proportion of repliers (over 50%) claimed that it may reduce waiting lists and enhance patient satisfaction (63.6%). However, concerns regarding data security and absence of standardised protocols were also reported. Conclusions: TM is positively perceived by both physicians and trainees' pulmonologist for ILDs follow-up and educational purposes in ILD management. Nevertheless, its integration and application are still hindered by some concerns such as limited infrastructure and digital literacy as well as lack of standardisation of reimbursement protocols and evolving regulatory frameworks. Broader integration of TM will require to address these challenges through investments in technology, structured protocols, and training initiatives.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12331260 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.5826/mrm.2025.1026 | DOI Listing |