Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29346378›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2018

Evaluating the impact of a 'virtual clinic' on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial.

Georgina Jones, Victoria Brennan, Richard Jacques, Hilary Wood, Simon Dixon, Stephen Radley

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Delivering remote consultations: Talking the talk.Musculoskeletal science & practice · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Georgina JonesDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5267-1776
Victoria BrennanHealth Economics and Decision Science, School of Health & Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Richard JacquesDesign, Trials and Statistics, School of Health & Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Hilary WoodHealth Economics and Decision Science, School of Health & Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Simon DixonHealth Economics and Decision Science, School of Health & Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Stephen RadleyUrogynaecology Unit, Jessop Wing, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
University of Sheffield · GBJessop Hospital · GBLeeds Beckett University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the impact of using a 'virtual clinic' on patient experience and cost in the care of women with urinary incontinence. MATERIALS AND

methodsWomen, aged > 18 years referred to a urogynaecology unit were randomised to either (1) A Standard Clinic or (2) A Virtual Clinic. Both groups completed a validated, web-based interactive, patient-reported outome measure (ePAQ-Pelvic Floor), in advance of their appointment followed by either a telephone consultation (Virtual Clinic) or face-to-face consultation (Standard Care). The primary outcome was the mean 'short-term outcome scale' score on the Patient Experience Questionnaire (PEQ). Secondary Outcome Measures included the other domains of the PEQ (Communications, Emotions and Barriers), Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ), Short-Form 12 (SF-12), personal, societal and NHS costs.

results195 women were randomised: 98 received the intervention and 97 received standard care. The primary outcome showed a non-significant difference between the two study arms. No significant differences were also observed on the CSQ and SF-12. However, the intervention group showed significantly higher PEQ domain scores for Communications, Emotions and Barriers (including following adjustment for age and parity). Whilst standard care was overall more cost-effective, this was minimal (£38.04). The virtual clinic also significantly reduced consultation time (10.94 minutes, compared with a mean duration of 25.9 minutes respectively) and consultation costs compared to usual care (£31.75 versus £72.17 respectively), thus presenting potential cost-savings in out-patient management.

conclusionsThe virtual clinical had no impact on the short-term dimension of the PEQ and overall was not as cost-effective as standard care, due to greater clinic re-attendances in this group. In the virtual clinic group, consultation times were briefer, communication experience was enhanced and personal costs lower. For medical conditions of a sensitive or intimate nature, a virtual clinic has potential to support patients to communicate with health professionals about their condition.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsAdultAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionUrinary IncontinenceYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29346378
PMCPMC5773012
OpenAlexW2784758722

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.