Connecting care—telemedicine breaks barriers for low-income Brazilians battling breast cancer: a prospective cohort study
Keywords:
Telemedicine, Breast neoplasms, Developing countries, Healthcare disparities, Health equity, Breast cancer, Healthcare access, Low-income population, Tele-oncology, Patient satisfaction, Public health surveillanceAbstract
BACKGROUND: Telemedicine may help advance healthcare equity, particularly in low-income communities, by reducing economic burdens and mitigating geographic barriers to specialized care, including transportation costs, time away from work, and long travel distances to referral centers.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the impact of a remote consultation protocol on healthcare access among predominantly low-income patients with breast cancer in Brazil.
DESIGN AND SETTING: This prospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary public cancer center and included 946 women with breast cancer.
METHODS: Sociodemographic characteristics, teleconsultation-related data, and patient satisfaction measured using a validated Likert-based questionnaire were collected. The study was approved by the local ethics committee, and all participants provided informed consent.
RESULTS: The mean age was 57.3 years. Overall, 51.6% of participants identified as white, and 64.4% reported a family income below two Brazilian minimum wages. Over one-third (34.3%) had not completed elementary school. Despite this socioeconomic vulnerability, 93.5% reported internet access, 90.3% owned a mobile phone, and 52.7% had an email address. During the study period, 946 appointments were scheduled and screened for teleconsultation eligibility. Among these, 229 patients met predefined eligibility criteria and were offered teleconsultation, and 117 completed the remote visit, corresponding to an uptake of 51.1% among eligible patients. Regarding hospital visits, 57% relied on public transportation, with a mean cost of $4 per visit, representing a substantial financial burden. Travel time exceeded 90 minutes for 19.4% of patients. Satisfaction with teleconsultation was high, with a mean Likert score of 4.65/5 and a Net Promoter Score of 79.8.
CONCLUSION: Among patients eligible for telemedicine, more than half completed teleconsultation, indicating that implementation is feasible even in socially vulnerable populations with limited digital literacy. The remote care protocol improved access, reduced financial burden, and achieved high patient satisfaction, supporting telemedicine as a strategy to promote equity in breast cancer care in Brazil.
Downloads
References
1. Matheus R, Ribeiro MM. Telemedicine in Brazilian public policy management. ICEGOV 2009: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Theory and practice of electronic governance. 2009;1:274. https://doi.org/10.1145/1693042.1693098.
2. Bayard S, Fasano G, Gillot T, et al. Breast cancer disparities and the digital divide. Curr Breast Cancer Rep. 2022;14(4):205–12. PMID: 36467667; https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-022-00468-w.
3. Hassibian MR, Hassibian S. Telemedicine acceptance and implementation in developing countries: benefits, categories, and barriers. Razavi International Journal of Medicine 2016;4. https://doi.org/10.17795/rijm38332.
4. Gupta PP, Khatoon S, Khatiwada N, Mishra A, Bhatta N, Geissbuhler A. Implementation, effectiveness and monitoring of telemedicine program in Bhutanese refugees camp in Eastern Nepal. J Family Med Prim Care. 2022 Jan;11(1):256–9. PMID: 35309651; https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1801_21.
5 Anderson-Lewis C, Darville G, Mercado RE, Howell S, Di Maggio S. mHealth technology use and implications in historically underserved and minority populations in the United States: systematic literature review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Jun 18;6(6):e128. PMID: 29914860; https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.8383.
6. Waidmann TA, Rajan S. Race and ethnic disparities in health care access and utilization: an examination of state variation. Med Care Res Rev. 2000;57 Suppl 1:55–84. PMID: 11092158; https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558700057001S04.
7. Bitton A, Ratcliffe HL, Veillard JH, et al. Primary health care as a foundation for strengthening health systems in low- and middle-income countries. J Gen Intern Med. 2017 May;32(5):566–71. PMID: 27943038; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-016-3898-5.
8. Kruk ME, Porignon D, Rockers PC, Van Lerberghe W. The contribution of primary care to health and health systems in low- and middle-income countries: a critical review of major primary care initiatives. Soc Sci Med. 2010 Mar;70(6):904–11. PMID: 20089341; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.025.
9. Azeredo-da-Silva AF, Zanotto BS, Martins F, Navarro N, Alencar R, Medeiros C. Health care accessibility and mobility in breast cancer: a Latin American perspective. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Jun 25;24(1):764. PMID: 38918823; https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11222-6.
10. Reis FJJ, Fernandes LG, Saragiotto BT. Telehealth in low- and middle-income countries: bridging the gap or exposing health disparities? Health Policy Technol. 2021 Dec;10(4):100577. PMID: 34745854; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2021.100577.
11. Pereira RHM, Braga CKV, Servo LM, et al. Geographic access to COVID-19 healthcare in Brazil using a balanced float catchment area approach. Soc Sci Med. 2021 Mar;273:113773. PMID: 33609968; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113773.
12. Fonseca BP, Albuquerque PC, Saldanha RF, Zicker F. Geographic accessibility to cancer treatment in Brazil: a network analysis. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2021 Dec 23;7:100153. PMID: 36777653; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2021.100153.
13. Gundim RS, Chao WL. A graphical representation model for telemedicine and telehealth center sustainability. Telemed J E Health. 2011 Apr;17(3):164–8. PMID: 21375411; https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2010.0064.
14. Oliveira GL, Cardoso CS, Ribeiro ALP, Caiaffa WT. Satisfação de médicos com o cuidado às doenças cardiovasculares em municípios de Minas Gerais: Escala Cardiosatis-EQUIPE. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2011;14:240–52. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-790X2011000200006.
15. Santos AF, Mata-Machado ATGD, Melo MDCB, Fonseca D Sobrinho, Araújo LL, Silva ÉA, Lima AMLD, Abreu DMX, Rocha HAD. Implementation of telehealth resources in primary care in Brazil and its association with quality of care. Telemed J E Health. 2019 Oct;25(10):996–1004. PMID: 30592699; https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2018.0166.
16. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007 Oct 20;335(7624):806–8. PMID: 17947786; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD.
17. Moreira TC, Constant HM, Faria AG, et al. Tradução, adaptação transcultural e validação de questionário de satisfação em telemedicina. Revista Brasileira de Medicina de Família e Comunidade. 2022 Mar 4;17(44):2837. http://doi.org/10.5712/rbmfc17(44)2837.
18. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap): a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377–81. PMID: 18929686; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
19. Caleffi M, Crivelatti I, Burchardt NA, et al. Breast cancer survival in Brazil: how much health care access impact on cancer outcomes? Breast. 2020 Dec;54:155–9. PMID: 33120081; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.10.001.
20. Carneiro AC, Pinho GS, Belo JV, et al. Outcomes of telemedicine care during the COVID-19 pandemic: experience from an intervention program designed for vulnerable population in Brazil. J Telemed Telecare. 2024 May;30(4):715–21. PMID: 35321612; https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X221089151.
21. Miziara RA, Maesaka JY, Matsumoto DRM, et al. Teleoncology orientation of low-income breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: feasibility and patient satisfaction. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2021 Nov;43(11):840–6. PMID: 34872142; https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1739425.
22. Patel KB, Turner K, Alishahi Tabriz A, et al. Estimated indirect cost savings of using telehealth among nonelderly patients with cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Jan 3;6(1):e2250211. PMID: 36626174; https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50211.
23. Yildiz F, Oksuzoglu B. Teleoncology or telemedicine for oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: the new normal for breast cancer survivors? Future Oncol. 2020 Oct;16(28):2191–5. PMID: 32857603; https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2020-0714.
24. Polinski JM, Barker T, Gagliano N, Sussman A, Brennan TA, Shrank WH. Patients’ satisfaction with and preference for telehealth visits. J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Mar;31(3):269–75. PMID: 26269131; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3489-x.
25. Gustke SS, Balch DC, West VL, Rogers LO. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine. Telemedicine Journal. 2000 May;6(1):5–13. https://doi.org/10.1089/107830200311806.
26. Orlando JF, Beard M, Kumar S. Systematic review of patient and caregivers’ satisfaction with telehealth videoconferencing as a mode of service delivery in managing patients' health. PLoS One. 2019 Aug 30;14(8):e0221848. PMID: 31469865; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221848.
27. Shaver J. The state of telehealth before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Prim Care. 2022 Dec;49(4):517–30. PMID: 36357058; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pop.2022.04.002.
28. Sonagli M, Cagnacci R Neto, Leite FPM, Makdissi FBA. The use of telemedicine to maintain breast cancer follow-up and surveillance during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Surg Oncol. 2021 Feb;123(2):371–4. PMID: 33333581; https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.26327.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Gabriel Salum DAlessandro
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
