Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28550006›Full record

Observational studyJournal of medical Internet research2017

Virtual Visits and Patient-Centered Care: Results of a Patient Survey and Observational Study.

Kimberlyn Marie McGrail, Megan Alyssa Ahuja, Chad Andrew Leaver

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Government partnerships with corporate virtual primary care.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

22 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

3 authors.

Kimberlyn Marie McGrailCentre for Health Services and Policy Research, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9349-1915
Megan Alyssa AhujaCentre for Health Services and Policy Research, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4192-2429
Chad Andrew LeaverCanada Health Infoway, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4562-5202

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVirtual visits are clinical interactions in health care that do not involve the patient and provider being in the same room at the same time. The use of virtual visits is growing rapidly in health care. Some health systems are integrating virtual visits into primary care as a complement to existing modes of care, in part reflecting a growing focus on patient-centered care. There is, however, limited empirical evidence about how patients view this new form of care and how it affects overall health system use.

objectiveDescriptive objectives were to assess users and providers of virtual visits, including the reasons patients give for use. The analytic objective was to assess empirically the influence of virtual visits on overall primary care use and costs, including whether virtual care is with a known or a new primary care physician.

methodsThe study took place in British Columbia, Canada, where virtual visits have been publicly funded since October 2012. A survey of patients who used virtual visits and an observational study of users and nonusers of virtual visits were conducted. Comparison groups included two groups: (1) all other BC residents, and (2) a group matched (3:1) to the cohort. The first virtual visit was used as the intervention and the main outcome measures were total primary care visits and costs.

resultsDuring 2013-2014, there were 7286 virtual visit encounters, involving 5441 patients and 144 physicians. Younger patients and physicians were more likely to use and provide virtual visits (P<.001), with no differences by sex. Older and sicker patients were more likely to see a known provider, whereas the lowest socioeconomic groups were the least likely (P<.001). The survey of 399 virtual visit patients indicated that virtual visits were liked by patients, with 372 (93.2%) of respondents saying their virtual visit was of high quality and 364 (91.2%) reporting their virtual visit was "very" or "somewhat" helpful to resolve their health issue. Segmented regression analysis and the corresponding regression parameter estimates suggested virtual visits appear to have the potential to decrease primary care costs by approximately Can $4 per quarter (Can -$3.79, P=.12), but that benefit is most associated with seeing a known provider (Can -$8.68, P<.001).

conclusionsVirtual visits may be one means of making the health system more patient-centered, but careful attention needs to be paid to how these services are integrated into existing health care delivery systems.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient-Centered CareSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineUser-Computer Interfacepatient-centered careprimary care deliverytelehealthvirtual visits

Identifiers

PMID28550006
PMCPMC5479398

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.