Virtual visits post‐COVID‐19: Assessing patient preferences for telemedicine in urology

Abstract Background The coronavirus pandemic rapidly integrated telemedicine into healthcare. In 2020, patients expressed satisfaction with virtual visits but desired a return to in‐person care. We evaluated patient preferences for telemedicine in urology as regulations evolve after the height of COVID‐19. Methods We distributed an anonymous, cross‐sectional survey to academic urology clinic patients, collecting demographics, factors influencing provider choice, benefits and frustrations of telemedicine, and barriers to care if telemedicine were unavailable. As prior telemedicine experience was not assessed, some responses may reflect anticipated perceptions. We analyzed categorical variables using chi‐square tests ( p < 0.05) and reported odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Of 127 participants, 32 (25.2%) reported telemedicine optionality as important when selecting a provider. Top benefits were convenience (59.8%) and reduced wait times (32.3%), while disadvantages included reduced personal connection (70.9%) and lack of private space (51.2%). Non‐Hispanic patients were more concerned about data privacy than Hispanic patients (OR = 3.79, 95% CI = 1.43–10.05, p = 0.007). Patients over 60 had more difficulty with technology (OR = 5.68, 95% CI = 1.82–17.67, p = 0.002). Lower‐educated patients expressed more concerns about reliable internet (OR = 4.12, 95% CI = 1.17–14.49, p = 0.03). If telemedicine were unavailable, 5.5% and 2.4% reported attending in‐person visits would be “somewhat” or “very” difficult, respectively. Conclusion While telemedicine in urology is valued for convenience, frustrations may limit patient interest. Our findings suggest a minority of patients in our urban setting would face difficulty receiving care without telemedicine, though this may not apply to areas with limited specialized care. Optimizing telemedicine while addressing challenges is essential for improving patient experiences and maintaining care access.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
UroPrecision
Published
2026-11-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/uro2.70091
Primary Topic
Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Virtual visits post‐COVID‐19: Assessing patient preferences for telemedicine in urology

Raveen Syan, Alan J. Wein, Katherine A. Amin, Max D. Sandler et al.
UroPrecision
Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
article

Virtual visits post‐COVID‐19: Assessing patient preferences for telemedicine in urology

Raveen Syan, Alan J. Wein, Katherine A. Amin, Max D. Sandler, Adam D. C. Williams, Grace K. Sarris
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background The coronavirus pandemic rapidly integrated telemedicine into healthcare. In 2020, patients expressed satisfaction with virtual visits but desired a return to in‐person care. We evaluated patient preferences for telemedicine in urology as regulations evolve after the height of COVID‐19. Methods We distributed an anonymous, cross‐sectional survey to academic urology clinic patients, collecting demographics, factors influencing provider choice, benefits and frustrations of telemedicine, and barriers to care if telemedicine were unavailable. As prior telemedicine experience was not assessed, some responses may reflect anticipated perceptions. We analyzed categorical variables using chi‐square tests ( p < 0.05) and reported odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Of 127 participants, 32 (25.2%) reported telemedicine optionality as important when selecting a provider. Top benefits were convenience (59.8%) and reduced wait times (32.3%), while disadvantages included reduced personal connection (70.9%) and lack of private space (51.2%). Non‐Hispanic patients were more concerned about data privacy than Hispanic patients (OR = 3.79, 95% CI = 1.43–10.05, p = 0.007). Patients over 60 had more difficulty with technology (OR = 5.68, 95% CI = 1.82–17.67, p = 0.002). Lower‐educated patients expressed more concerns about reliable internet (OR = 4.12, 95% CI = 1.17–14.49, p = 0.03). If telemedicine were unavailable, 5.5% and 2.4% reported attending in‐person visits would be “somewhat” or “very” difficult, respectively. Conclusion While telemedicine in urology is valued for convenience, frustrations may limit patient interest. Our findings suggest a minority of patients in our urban setting would face difficulty receiving care without telemedicine, though this may not apply to areas with limited specialized care. Optimizing telemedicine while addressing challenges is essential for improving patient experiences and maintaining care access.

UroPrecision
University of Miami (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon