Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34431426›Full record

ReviewThe European journal of general practice2021

Virtual primary care in high-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: Policy responses and lessons for the future.

Ana Luisa Neves, Edmond Li, Pramendra Prasad Gupta, Gianluca Fontana, Ara Darzi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The European journal of general practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Uses of Virtual Care in Primary Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  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

5 authors.

Ana Luisa NevesImperial NIHR Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7107-7211
Edmond LiImperial NIHR Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8209-4490
Pramendra Prasad GuptaDepartment of General Practice and Emergency Medicine, B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.
Gianluca FontanaCentre for Health Policy, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London.
Ara DarziImperial NIHR Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTelemedicine, once defined merely as the treatment of certain conditions remotely, has now often been supplanted in use by broader terms such as 'virtual care', in recognition of its increasing capability to deliver a diverse range of healthcare services from afar. With the unexpected onset of COVID-19, virtual care (e.g. telephone, video, online) has become essential to facilitating the continuation of primary care globally. Over several short weeks, existing healthcare policies have adapted quickly and empowered clinicians to use digital means to fulfil a wide range of clinical responsibilities, which until then have required face-to-face consultations.

objectivesThis paper aims to explore the virtual care policies and guidance material published during the initial months of the pandemic and examine their potential limitations and impact on transforming the delivery of primary care in high-income countries.

methodsA rapid review of publicly available national policies guiding the use of virtual care in General Practice was conducted. Documents were included if issued in the first six months of the pandemic (March to August of 2020) and focussed primarily on high-income countries. Documents must have been issued by a national health authority, accreditation body, or professional organisation, and directly refer to the delivery of primary care.

resultsWe extracted six areas of relevance: primary care transformation during COVID-19, the continued delivery of preventative care, the delivery of acute care, remote triaging, funding & reimbursement, and security standards.

conclusionVirtual care use in primary care saw a transformative change during the pandemic. However, despite the advances in the various governmental guidance offered, much work remains in addressing the shortcomings exposed during COVID-19 and strengthening viable policies to better incorporate novel technologies into the modern primary care clinical environment.

Indexed as

COVID-19Developed CountriesDigital TechnologyHealth PolicyHumansPrimary Health CareTelemedicineclinical informaticsCOVID-19health informaticshealth policyPrimary caretelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID34431426
PMCPMC8404680

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.