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.
TucksonRVEdmundsMHodgkinsML. Telehealth. N Engl J Med2017; 377: 1585–1592.
2.
MoffattJJEleyDS. The reported benefits of telehealth for rural Australians. Aust Health Rev2010; 34: 276–281.
3.
SabesanSSimcoxKMarrI. Medical oncology clinics through videoconferencing: an acceptable telehealth model for rural patients and health workers. Intern Med J2012; 42: 780–785.
4.
ChanBALarkinsSLEvansR, et al.Do teleoncology models of care enable safe delivery of chemotherapy in rural towns?Med J Aust2015; 203: 406–406 e406.
5.
JhaveriDLarkinsSKellyJ, et al.Remote chemotherapy supervision model for rural cancer care: perspectives of health professionals. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)2016; 25: 93–98.
6.
SabesanSKellyJEvansR, et al.A tele-oncology model replacing face-to-face specialist cancer care: perspectives of patients in North Queensland. J Telemed Telecare2014; 20: 207–211.
7.
SabesanSLarkinsSEvansR, et al.Telemedicine for rural cancer care in North Queensland: bringing cancer care home. Aust J Rural Health2012; 20: 259–264.
8.
SabesanSXingDGalloJ. Telemedicine platforms must be leveraged to strengthen rural health systems. J Med Radiat Sci2022; 69: 277–278.
9.
SabesanSSenkoCSchmidtA, et al.Enhancing chemotherapy capabilities in rural hospitals: implementation of a telechemotherapy model (QReCS) in North Queensland, Australia. J Oncol Pract2018; 14: e429–e437.
10.
LiangWGuanWChenR, et al.Cancer patients in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a nationwide analysis in China. Lancet Oncol2020; 21: 335–337.
11.
UedaMMartinsRHendriePC, et al.Managing cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic: agility and collaboration toward a common goal. J Natl Compr Canc Netw2020; 18: 1–4. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7560.
12.
BurkiTK. Cancer guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Oncol2020; 21: 629–630.
13.
COVID-19 recovery: Implications for cancer care. Surry Hills: Cancer Australia, 2020.
14.
Elston LafataJSmithABWoodWA, et al.Virtual visits in oncology: enhancing care quality while designing for equity. JCO Oncol Pract2021; 17: 220–223.
15.
ZonRTKennedyEBAdelsonK, et al.Telehealth in oncology: ASCO standards and practice recommendations. JCO Oncol Pract2021; 17: 546–564.
BennettJC. The anglosphere challenge: why the English-speaking nations will lead the way in the twenty-first century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2004, p.xii, 337 p.
21.
Health. AGDo. 2020.
22.
SnoswellCLSmithACPageM, et al.Quantifying the societal benefits from telehealth: productivity and reduced travel. Value Health Reg Issues2022; 28: 61–66.
23.
CollinsAMcLachlanSAPasanenL, et al.Perceptions of telehealth in real-world oncological care: an exploration of matched patient- and clinician-reported acceptability data from an Australian cancer centre. Cancer Med2022; 11: 3342–3351.
24.
NandaALamLLLynchJ, et al.Experiences and satisfaction with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic: the perspectives of patients with cancer in Australia. JCO Glob Oncol2024; 10: e2400081.
25.
ShafferKMTurnerKLSiwikC, et al.Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews. Lancet Digit Health2023; 5: e316–e327.
26.
ChimonasSLipitz-SnydermanASpiegelhoffZ, et al.Persistence of telemedicine usage for breast and prostate cancer after the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Cancers (Basel)2023; 15: 4961. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15204961.
27.
AhmedMEAndrewsJRJoshiVB, et al.Patient satisfaction of telemedicine visits in an advanced prostate cancer clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes2021; 5: 689–692.
28.
SenerUUhmJHaddadT, et al.Telehealth utilization in neuro-oncology: commentary on a single institution experience after the COVID-19 pandemic. Curr Oncol Rep2024; 26: 1271–1276.
29.
StathakisSPapanikolaouNAshfordJ, et al.The risks of telehealth in radiation oncology: challenges and mitigation strategies. Front Oncol2025; 15: 1595975.
30.
ShaverdianNGillespieEFChaE, et al.Impact of telemedicine on patient satisfaction and perceptions of care quality in radiation oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw2021; 19: 1174–1180.
31.
BanerjeeRAcobYC. Telehealth and time burden in patients with advanced cancer. JAMA Netw Open2025; 8: e2516769.
32.
WhiteVBastableASoloI, et al.Telehealth cancer care consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study of the experiences of Australians affected by cancer. Support Care Cancer2022; 30: 6659–6668.
33.
PritchettJCBorahBJDholakiaR, et al.Patient- and provider-level factors associated with telehealth utilization across a multisite, multiregional cancer practice from 2019 to 2021. JCO Oncol Pract2023; 19: 750–758.
34.
KempMRisingKLLaynorG, et al.Barriers to telehealth uptake and use: a scoping review. JAMIA Open2025; 8: ooaf019.
35.
De GuzmanKRCafferyLJSmithAC, et al.Specialist consultation activity and costs in Australia: before and after the introduction of COVID-19 telehealth funding. J Telemed Telecare2021; 27: 609–614.
36.
GuadamuzJSWangXRoyceTJ, et al.Sociodemographic inequities in telemedicine use among US patients initiating treatment in community cancer centers during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, 2020-2022. JCO Oncol Pract2023; 19: 1206–1214.
37.
KatzAJHaynesKDuS, et al.Evaluation of telemedicine use among US patients with newly diagnosed cancer by socioeconomic status. JAMA Oncol2022; 8: 161–163.
38.
LeclercqVVandervlietLSchmittT, et al.Inequities to the access to and use of telemedicine among cancer patients in Europe: a scoping review. Front Public Health2025; 13: 1483706.
39.
RendleKATanASLSpringB, et al.A framework for integrating telehealth equitably across the cancer care continuum. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr2024; 2024: 92–99.
40.
ScanlonBBroughMWyldD, et al.Equity across the cancer care continuum for culturally and linguistically diverse migrants living in Australia: a scoping review. Global Health2021; 17: 87.
41.
Gallegos-RejasVMKellyJTLucasK, et al.A cross-sectional study exploring equity of access to telehealth in culturally and linguistically diverse communities in a major health service. Aust Health Rev2023; 47: 721–728.
42.
BradyBSaberiGSantaluciaY, et al.Without support CALD patients will be left behind: a mixed-methods exploration of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) client perspectives of telehealth and those of their healthcare providers. J Telemed Telecare2024; 30: 1493–1506.
43.
UnderhillCFreemanJDixonJ, et al.Decentralized clinical trials as a new paradigm of trial delivery to improve equity of access. JAMA Oncol2024; 10: 526–530.
44.
PatelTHCorneliABalcazarP, et al.Adoption of decentralized trial elements in cancer clinical trials supporting FDA approvals during COVID-19. Clin Cancer Res2025; 31: 1827–1830.
45.
FuSGerberDEBegMS. Decentralized clinical trials in oncology: Are we ready for a virtual-first paradigm?J Clin Oncol2023; 41: 181–185.
