Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31262846›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2019

Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations: a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care.

Victoria Hammersley, Eddie Donaghy, Richard Parker, Hannah McNeilly, Helen Atherton, Annemieke Bikker, John Campbell, Brian McKinstry

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 195 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
195citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

195 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Patient Satisfaction with Telemedicine during the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Safety-netting communication during telephone consultations: an observational study using recorded consultations.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Victoria HammersleyUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics.
Eddie DonaghyUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics.
Richard ParkerUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics.
Hannah McNeillyMedical Teaching Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
Helen AthertonWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry.
Annemieke BikkerUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics.
John CampbellGeneral Practice and Primary Care, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter.
Brian McKinstryUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HIPS/16/20
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGrowing demands on primary care services have led to policymakers promoting video consultations (VCs) to replace routine face-to-face consultations (FTFCs) in general practice.

aimTo explore the content, quality, and patient experience of VC, telephone (TC), and FTFCs in general practice. DESIGN AND

settingComparison of audio-recordings of follow-up consultations in UK primary care.

methodPrimary care clinicians were provided with video-consulting equipment. Participating patients required a smartphone, tablet, or computer with camera. Clinicians invited patients requiring a follow-up consultation to choose a VC, TC, or FTFC. Consultations were audio-recorded and analysed for content and quality. Participant experience was explored in post-consultation questionnaires. Case notes were reviewed for NHS resource use.

resultsOf the recordings, 149/163 were suitable for analysis. VC recruits were younger, and more experienced in communicating online. FTFCs were longer than VCs (mean difference +3.7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1 to 5.2) or TCs (+4.1 minutes, 95% CI = 2.6 to 5.5). On average, patients raised fewer problems in VCs (mean 1.5, standard deviation [SD] 0.8) compared with FTFCs (mean 2.1, SD 1.1) and demonstrated fewer instances of information giving by clinicians and patients. FTFCs scored higher than VCs and TCs on consultation-quality items.

conclusionVC may be suitable for simple problems not requiring physical examination. VC, in terms of consultation length, content, and quality, appeared similar to TC. Both approaches appeared less 'information rich' than FTFC. Technical problems were common and, though patients really liked VC, infrastructure issues would need to be addressed before the technology and approach can be mainstreamed in primary care.

Indexed as

AftercareAppointments and SchedulesCommunicationPhysician-Patient RelationsPrimary Health CareRemote ConsultationTelephoneVideoconferencingAdultAgedDelivery of Health CareFemaleGeneral PracticeHealth Services ResearchHumansMalecommunicationgeneral practicehealth services researchtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID31262846
PMCPMC6607843

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.