Retrospective cohort study examines continuous telehealth use in cancer care, suggesting need for equitable access policies.
Introduction Telehealth use expanded rapidly in oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic, but determinants for ongoing use in metropolitan cancer care after the pandemic remain unclear. Methods A multi-centre retrospective cohort study of 271,889 oncology outpatient consultations (face-to-face, telephone, video) from 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2024 across four cancer centres in Sydney, Australia was conducted. Consultations were divided into pre-COVID, during-COVID restrictions and post-COVID restriction time periods. Multivariable generalised estimating equations modelled the odds of telehealth use in the during and post-restriction periods, testing interactions between time periods and key covariates. Results Across 271,889 consultations with 21,125 patients the proportion of telehealth consultations was negligible pre-pandemic (0.4%), peaked during restrictions (24.7%) then reduced but was sustained post-restrictions (11.4%). Post-restrictions, telehealth use was more likely for follow-up consultations (vs new, p < .001), medical oncology consultations (vs radiation, p < .001), patients enrolled on a clinical trial ( p < .001) and primary tumours including brain and genitourinary (vs breast, p < .001). Patients from the most socioeconomically disadvantaged quintiles (vs highest, p < .001), those who required an interpreter ( p < .001), those receiving active treatment in the cancer centre (vs not on treatment, p < .001) and with primary tumours including head and neck or skin (vs breast, p < .001) were less likely to undergo telehealth consultations. Conclusions There is modest but sustained use of telehealth in oncology post-pandemic restrictions particularly for follow-up consultations, with less utilisation in populations experiencing disadvantage. Strategic, equity-focused policies are needed to ensure that telehealth use enhances, rather than exacerbates, disparities in access to cancer care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parsonson et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: