Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31069105›Full record

ReviewDigital health

Internet videoconferencing for patient-clinician consultations in long-term conditions: A review of reviews and applications in line with guidelines and recommendations.

Agnieszka Ignatowicz, Helen Atherton, Celia Janine Bernstein, Carol Bryce, Rachel Court, Jackie Sturt, Frances Griffiths

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

94 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Delivery of supported self-management in remote asthma reviews: A systematic rapid realist review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Beyond productivity: aBMJ digital health & AI · 2026
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

34 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

7 authors.

Agnieszka IgnatowiczInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5863-0828
Helen AthertonWarwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Celia Janine BernsteinWarwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Carol BryceWarwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Rachel CourtWarwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Jackie SturtFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Frances GriffithsWarwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health 12/209/51
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of internet videoconferencing in healthcare settings is widespread, reflecting the normalisation of this mode of communication in society and current healthcare policy. As the use of internet videoconferencing is growing, increasing numbers of reviews of literature are published.

methodsThe authors conducted a review of the existing reviews of literature relating to the use of internet videoconferencing for consultations between healthcare professionals and patients with long-term conditions in their own home. The review was followed with an assessment of United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for patient care in the context of common long-term illnesses to examine where videoconferencing could be implemented in line with these recommendations.

resultsThe review of reviews found no formal evidence in favour of or against the use of internet videoconferencing. Patients were satisfied with the use of videoconferencing but there was limited evidence that it led to a change in health outcomes. Evidence of healthcare professional satisfaction when using this mode of communication with patients was limited. The review of guidelines suggested a number of opportunities for adoption and expansion of internet videoconferencing. Implementing videoconferencing in line with current evidence for patient care could offer support and provide information on using a communication channel that suits individual patient needs and circumstances. The evidence base for videoconferencing is growing, but there is still a lack of data relating to cost, ethics and safety.

conclusionsWhile the current evidence base for internet videoconferencing is equivocal, it is likely to change as more research is undertaken and evidence published. With more videoconferencing services added in more contexts, research needs to explore how internet videoconferencing can be implemented in ways that it is valued by patients and clinicians, and how it can fit within organisational and technical infrastructure of the healthcare services.

Indexed as

Internet videoconferencinglong-term conditionsreview of reviews

Identifiers

PMID31069105
PMCPMC6495459

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.