Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34488898›Full record

ArticleArchives of physiotherapy2021

A qualitative investigation into the results of a discrete choice experiment and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for virtual consultations.

Anthony W Gilbert, Carl R May, Hazel Brown, Maria Stokes, Jeremy Jones

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of physiotherapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Factors Affecting Telehealth Consultation in Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Scoping Review.International journal of telemedicine and applications · 2026
    Review
  2. Patient Preferences for Telerehabilitation Compared to In-Person Physiotherapy: A Binary Discrete Choice Experiment.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Anthony W GilbertTherapies Department, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, UK. anthony.gilbert@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2526-8057
Carl R MayNIHR Applied Research Collaboration, North Thames, London, UK.
Hazel BrownTherapies Department, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, UK.
Maria StokesSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Jeremy JonesSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBNIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

National Institute for Health Research ICA-CDRF-2017-03-025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo conduct a qualitative investigation on a subset of participants from a previously completed Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to understand why factors identified from the DCE are important, how they influenced preference for virtual consultations (VC) and how COVID-19 has influenced preference for VC.

methodsA quota sample was recruited from participants who participated in our DCE. We specifically targeted participants who were strongly in favour of face-to-face consultations (F2F - defined as choosing all or mostly F2F in the DCE) or strongly in favour of virtual consultations (VC - defined as choosing all or mostly VC consultations in the DCE) to elicit a range of views. Interviews were conducted via telephone or videoconference, audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and uploaded into NVIVO software. A directed content analysis of transcripts was undertaken in accordance with a coding framework based on the results of the DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on preference.

resultsEight F2F and 5 VC participants were included. Shorter appointments were less 'worth' travelling in for than a longer appointment and rush hour travel had an effect on whether travelling was acceptable, particularly when patients experienced pain as a result of extended journeys. Socioeconomic factors such as cost of travel, paid time off work, access to equipment and support in its use was important. Physical examinations were preferable in the clinic whereas talking therapies were acceptable over VC. Several participants commented on how VC interferes with the patient-clinician relationship. VC during COVID-19 has provided patients with the opportunity to access their care virtually without the need for travel. For some, this was extremely positive.

conclusionsThis study investigated the results of a previously completed DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for VC. Theoretically informative insights were gained to explain the results of the DCE. The use of VC during the COVID-19 pandemic provided opportunities to access care without the need for face-to-face social interactions. Many felt that VC would become more commonplace after the pandemic, whereas others were keen to return to F2F consultations as much as possible. This qualitative study provides additional context to the results of a previously completed DCE.

Indexed as

COVID-19OrthopaedicsPatient preferencesRehabilitationTelehealthVirtual consultations

Identifiers

PMID34488898
PMCPMC8419808
OpenAlexW3198609553

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.