Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26826147›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Virtual online consultations: advantages and limitations (VOCAL) study.

Trisha Greenhalgh, Shanti Vijayaraghavan, Joe Wherton, Sara Shaw, Emma Byrne, Desirée Campbell-Richards, Satya Bhattacharya, Philippa Hanson, Seendy Ramoutar, Charles Gutteridge and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 129 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
129citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

129 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

69 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Trisha GreenhalghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Shanti VijayaraghavanBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Joe WhertonBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
Sara ShawNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Emma ByrneBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
Desirée Campbell-RichardsBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Satya BhattacharyaBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Philippa HansonBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Seendy RamoutarBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Charles GutteridgeBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Isabel HodkinsonTower Hamlets Clinical Commissioning Group, London, UK.
Anna CollardBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Joanne MorrisBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/13/59/26
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRemote video consultations between clinician and patient are technically possible and increasingly acceptable. They are being introduced in some settings alongside (and occasionally replacing) face-to-face or telephone consultations.

methodsTo explore the advantages and limitations of video consultations, we will conduct in-depth qualitative studies of real consultations (microlevel) embedded in an organisational case study (mesolevel), taking account of national context (macrolevel). The study is based in 2 contrasting clinical settings (diabetes and cancer) in a National Health Service (NHS) acute trust in London, UK. Main data sources are: microlevel--audio, video and screen capture to produce rich multimodal data on 45 remote consultations; mesolevel--interviews, ethnographic observations and analysis of documents within the trust; macrolevel--key informant interviews of national-level stakeholders and document analysis. Data will be analysed and synthesised using a sociotechnical framework developed from structuration theory. ETHICS APPROVAL: City Road and Hampstead NHS Research Ethics Committee, 9 December 2014, reference 14/LO/1883. PLANNED OUTPUTS: We plan outputs for 5 main audiences: (1) academics: research publications and conference presentations; (2) service providers: standard operating procedures, provisional operational guidance and key safety issues; (3) professional bodies and defence societies: summary of relevant findings to inform guidance to members; (4) policymakers: summary of key findings; (5) patients and carers: 'what to expect in your virtual consultation'. DISCUSSION: The research literature on video consultations is sparse. Such consultations offer potential advantages to patients (who are spared the cost and inconvenience of travel) and the healthcare system (eg, they may be more cost-effective), but fears have been expressed that they may be clinically risky and/or less acceptable to patients or staff, and they bring significant technical, logistical and regulatory challenges. We anticipate that this study will contribute to a balanced assessment of when, how and in what circumstances this model might be introduced.

Indexed as

Remote ConsultationDiabetes MellitusDisease ManagementHumansNeoplasmsQualitative ResearchResearch DesignState MedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID26826147
PMCPMC4735312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.