Talk:Telehealth

From SI410
Jump to: navigation, search

References have not yet been added! Feedback is very much appreciated! —Zach


LENGTH: I checked the length of this article Tuesday February 1st. The article is currently 2,300 words including the headings, so to meet the 3,000 word requirement, the author needs to write anywhere from 600-800 more words. I think the length of the intro section is typical of an article on Wikipedia. I like that the majority of the subcategories have similar lengths so that the article doesn’t prioritize one section over others. STRUCTURE: The article includes (1) an opening paragraph that summarizes the issue. This section follows a logical structure, starting with a thorough definition of telehealth along with its purpose and how it functions. The author did include (2) the body of the article in multiple sections - each with their own corresponding subsections. One thing the author may want to consider is expanding on the section that entails the ethical concerns regarding telehealth because we were told to make that section at least a third of the article. Currently it is 514 words which makes up less than a third so as they finalize the article I would recommend adding to this section of the body. Besides that, I think the breakdowns of the sections make sense and provide important information. I think including an “Outcomes” section was a clever way to show the capabilities of telehealth and its relevance to modern medicine (especially in the context of COVID) . I was also interested to see the author included a media section. I didn’t think about including that in my own article, but it is common practice in Wikipedia articles, and often helps a user to relate a topic to something popular - so I think this was a smart choice. As of right now, the article is lacking (3) statements backed up by references to reliable sources, but it appears as if they have left themselves space to add them in later. Moving forward with final edits, I would make sure that each individual section has at least one source to back up the information it contains. I would also try to ensure that the citations at the end of the article correspond with the in text citations - right now I see a few cited at the end that I couldn’t find in the body of the article? CLARITY: The issue at stake is clear to me. The article lists the largest ethical issues and it's clear that the biggest ethical considerations consist of questions of whether or not patients will receive comparable care via telehealth versus in person care. The sections that describe the liability and accessibility issues could be expanded upon to give more detail, maybe not only describe how they are problematic but include the consequences of not resolving liability ambiguity - I think this will happen naturally when the author adds their references in. The importance of these issues are clearly conveyed as patients could potentially have medical consequences if they are not dealt with. OBJECTIVE REPORTING (NPOV): I saw no evidence of the author stating their personal opinion or arguing for one side or another in this article. Both sides of many issues were described - for example the article described telehealth’s potential to make healthcare more accessible in remote or underserved areas, and also listed accessibility as an ethical concern because of inequalities in access to internet and or insurance. Because a good portion of the ethical questions listed in the article discussed the potential harm that could befall patients, there might be a potential to talk more about the ethical issues from the clinician side ( as they are an important stakeholder of telehealth services too). Overall, I think the author achieved a neutral tone and doesn’t attempt to do any convincing - they simply describe the facts.