Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31565409›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2019

Barriers and facilitators for implementation of electronic consultations (eConsult) to enhance access to specialist care: a scoping review.

Mohamed A Osman, Kara Schick-Makaroff, Stephanie Thompson, Liza Bialy, Robin Featherstone, Julia Kurzawa, Deenaz Zaidi, Ikechi Okpechi, Syed Habib, Soroush Shojai and 9 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Telehealth Modality Usage by US Physicians in 2022.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

19 authors.

Mohamed A OsmanDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Kara Schick-MakaroffFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Stephanie ThompsonDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Liza BialyAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Robin FeatherstoneAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Julia KurzawaDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Deenaz ZaidiDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Ikechi OkpechiDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Syed HabibDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Soroush ShojaiDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Kailash JindalDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Branko BraamDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Erin KeelyDepartments of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Clare LiddyDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Braden MannsDepartment of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Marcello TonelliDepartment of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Brenda HemmelgarnDepartment of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Scott KlarenbachDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Aminu K BelloDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionElectronic consultation (eConsult)-provider-to-provider electronic asynchronous exchanges of patient health information at a distance-is emerging as a potential tool to improve the interface between primary care providers and specialists. Despite growing evidence that eConsult has clinical benefits, it is not widely adopted. We investigated factors influencing the adoption and implementation of eConsult services.

methodsWe applied established methods to guide the review, and the recently published Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews to report our findings. We searched five electronic databases and the grey literature for relevant studies. Two reviewers independently screened titles and full texts to identify studies that reported barriers to and/or facilitators of eConsult (asynchronous (store-and-forward) use of telemedicine to exchange patient health information between two providers (primary and secondary) at a distance using secure infrastructure). We extracted data on study characteristics and key barriers and facilitators were analysed thematically and classified using the Quadruple Aim framework taxonomy. No date or language restrictions were applied.

resultsAmong the 2579 publications retrieved, 130 studies met eligibility for the review. We identified and summarised key barriers to and facilitators of eConsult adoption and implementation across four domains: provider, patient, healthcare system and cost. Key barriers were increased workload for providers, privacy concerns and insufficient reimbursement for providers. Main facilitators were remote residence location, timely responses from specialists, utilisation of referral coordinators, addressing medicolegal concerns and incentives for providers to use eConsult.

conclusionThere are multiple barriers to and facilitators of eConsult adoption across the domains of Quadruple Aim framework. Our findings will inform the development of practice tools to support the wider adoption and scalability of eConsult implementation.

Indexed as

health services researchreview

Identifiers

PMID31565409
PMCPMC6747903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.