Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32938591›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2020

Use of virtual consultations in an orthopaedic rehabilitation setting: how do changes in the work of being a patient influence patient preferences? A systematic review and qualitative synthesis.

Anthony W Gilbert, Jeremy Jones, Anju Jaggi, Carl R May

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Changing media depictions of remote consulting in COVID-19: analysis of UK newspapers.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

Anthony W GilbertTherapies Department, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, Middlesex, UK anthony.gilbert@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0003-2526-8057
Jeremy JonesSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Anju JaggiTherapies Department, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, Middlesex, UK.
Carl R MayFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health ICA-CDRF-2017-03-025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically review qualitative studies reporting the use of virtual consultations within an orthopaedic rehabilitation setting and to understand how its use changes the work required of patients.

methodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement, we conducted a systematic review of papers to answer the research question 'How do changes in the work of being a patient when using communication technology influence patient preferences?' Electronic databases were searched for studies meeting the inclusion criteria in April 2020.

resultsThe search strategy identified 2057 research articles from the database search. A review of titles and abstracts using the inclusion criteria yielded 21 articles for full-text review. Nine studies were included in the final analysis. Six studies explored real-time video conferencing and three explored telephone consultations. The use of communication technology changes the work required of patients. Such changes will impact on expectations for care, resources required of patients, the environment of receiving care and patient-clinician interactions. This adjustment of the work required of patients who access orthopaedic rehabilitation using communication technology will impact on their experience of receiving care. It is proposed that changes in the work of being a patient will influence preferences for or against the use of communication technology consultations for orthopaedic rehabilitation.

conclusionWe found that the use of communication technology changes the work of being a patient. The change in work required of patients can be both burdensome (it makes it harder for patients to access their care) and beneficial (it makes it easier for patients to access their care). This change will likely to influence preferences. Keeping the concept of patient work at the heart of pathway redesign is likely to be a key consideration to ensure successful implementation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018100896.

Indexed as

OrthopedicsPatient PreferenceHumansInformation TechnologyQualitative ResearchReferral and Consultationorthopaedic & trauma surgeryqualitative researchrehabilitation medicinetelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID32938591
PMCPMC7497523

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.