Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34009880›Full record

ArticleMedical care2021

Provider Perceptions of Virtual Care During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Multispecialty Survey Study.

Samantha L Connolly, Allen L Gifford, Christopher J Miller, Mark S Bauer, Lisa S Lehmann, Michael E Charness

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 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. Media depictions of primary care teleconsultation safety: a thematic analysis of UK newspapers.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Plastic Surgery in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries: Role of Telemedicine.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Samantha L ConnollyCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), VA Boston Healthcare System.
Allen L GiffordCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), VA Boston Healthcare System.
Christopher J MillerCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), VA Boston Healthcare System.
Mark S BauerCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), VA Boston Healthcare System.
Lisa S LehmannHarvard Medical School.
Michael E CharnessHarvard Medical School.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a dramatic increase in virtual care (VC) across outpatient specialties, but little is known regarding provider acceptance of VC.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to assess provider perceptions of the quality, efficiency, and challenges of VC versus in-person care with masks.

designThis was a voluntary survey.

participantsMental health (MH), primary care, medical specialty, and surgical specialty providers across the 8 VA New England Healthcare System medical centers. MEASURES: Provider ratings of: (1) quality and efficiency of VC (phone and video telehealth) compared with in-person care with masks; (2) challenges of VC; and (3) percentage of patients that providers are comfortable seeing via VC in the future.

resultsThe sample included 998 respondents (49.8% MH, 20.6% primary care, 20.4% medical specialty, 9.1% surgical specialty; 61% response rate). Most providers rated VC as equivalent to or higher in quality and efficiency compared with in-person care with masks. Quality ratings were significantly higher for video versus phone (χ2=61.4, P<0.0001), but efficiency ratings did not differ significantly. Ratings varied across specialties (highest in MH, lowest in SS; all χ2s>24.1, Ps<0.001). Inability to conduct a physical examination and patient technical difficulties were significant challenges. MH providers were comfortable seeing a larger proportion of patients virtually compared with the other specialties (all χ2s>12.2, Ps<0.01).

conclusionsBroad provider support for VC was stratified across specialties, with the highest ratings in MH and lowest ratings in SS. Findings will inform the improvement of VC processes and the planning of health care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelTelemedicineCOVID-19HumansMental HealthPrimary Health CareSARS-CoV-2Specialties, SurgicalSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesUnited States Department of Veterans Affairs

Identifiers

PMID34009880
PMCPMC8191369

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.