Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34726993›Full record

ArticleJournal of telemedicine and telecare2021

Sustaining allied health telehealth services beyond the rapid response to COVID-19: Learning from patient and staff experiences at a large quaternary hospital.

Michelle Cottrell, Clare L Burns, Amber Jones, Ann Rahmann, Adrienne Young, Sonia Sam, Mark Cruickshank, Kelsey Pateman

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of telemedicine and telecare, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michelle Cottrell3883Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Metro North Health, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7300-1467
Clare L Burns3883Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Metro North Health, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9752-1739
Amber Jones3883Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Metro North Health, Australia.
Ann Rahmann3883Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Metro North Health, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5458-2849
Adrienne Young3883Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Metro North Health, Australia.
Sonia Sam3883Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Metro North Health, Australia.
Mark Cruickshank3883Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Metro North Health, Australia.
Kelsey Pateman3883Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Metro North Health, Australia.
Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AUThe University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The patient, clinician and administration staff perspectives of telehealth (specifically videoconferencing) services provided by Allied Health Professions (AHP) at a large quaternary hospital were explored. The purpose was to understand stakeholders' perceptions of the service during initial COVID-19 restrictions and examine factors that influenced the implementation and sustained use of telehealth. A sequential mixed-methods approach was undertaken. Stage 1 involved surveys completed by patients (n = 109) and clinicians (n = 66) who received and provided care via telehealth, respectively, across six AHP departments. Stage 2 involved focus groups with clinicians (n = 24) and administrative staff (n = 13) to further examine implementation and sustainability factors.All participant groups confirmed that telehealth was a valid service model and valued the benefits it afforded, particularly during COVID-19 restrictions. Both patients and clinicians reported that not all AHP services could be delivered via telehealth and preferred a blended model of telehealth and in-person care. Increased administrative staff assistance was needed to support growing telehealth demand. Main factors to address are the need to expand AHP telehealth models and workforce/patient training, improve workflow processes and enhance technical support.Despite rapid implementation, telehealth experiences were overall positive. Study findings are being used to generate solutions to enhance and sustain AHP telehealth services.

Indexed as

COVID-19TelemedicineHospitalsHumansSARS-CoV-2VideoconferencingAllied healthCOVID-19implementationquaternary caresustainabilitytelehealth

Identifiers

PMID34726993
PMCPMC8564219
OpenAlexW3210968520

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.