Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun 8;6(5):1111–1119. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.001

Table 3.

Significance of communication and telemedicine in urology during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Very negative (1) Negative (2) Neutral (3) Positive (4) Very positive (5) p Value
How do you rate the quality of information in Germany regarding COVID-19? 6.6 (39) 14.1 (83) 20.4 (120) 49.4 (291) 9.5 (56)

Far too little (1) Too little (2) Just right (3) Too much (4) Far too much (5)
How do you rate the quantity of information in Germany regarding COVID-19? 1.0 (6) 10.9 (64) 36.2 (213) 43.6 (257) 8.3 (49)

Very low (1) Low (2) Moderate (3) High (4) Very high (5)
How do you rate the relevance of telemedical care/consultation during the COVID-19 pandemic? 3.3 (19) 19.0 (109) 30.2 (173) 32.6 (187) 14.8 (85)
Hospital
Ambulatory health care center/medical practice
0.6 (2)
6.7 (17)
11.3 (36)
28.6 (73)
26.7 (85)
34.5 (88)
40.6 (129)
22.7 (58)
20.8 (66)
7.5 (19)
<0.001

Not at all (1) Only for individual cases (2) Daily routine (3)
Is there a possibility to reduce patient contact through telemedical approaches (eg, telephone consultation, videotelephony) at your institution? 29.1 (167) 50.1 (287) 20.8 (119)
Hospital
Ambulatory health care center/medical practice
38.0 (121)
18.0 (46)
45.0 (143)
56.5 (144)
17.0 (54)
25.5 (65)
<0.001

No (1) Partly (2) Yes (3)
Are there any technical or regulatory restrictions regarding the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic at your institution? 35.1 (201) 40.1 (230) 24.8 (142)
Hospital
Ambulatory health care center/medical practice
30.8 (98)
40.4 (103)
45.0 (143)
34.1 (87)
24.2 (77)
25.5 (65)
0.161

In case of multiple pairwise comparisons, the level of significance was adjusted by Bonferroni correction. For three groups (three pairwise comparisons), a p-value of p=0.017 was considered statistically significant.