ArticleBJGP open2022
Telehealth-based diagnostic testing in general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study.
Article in BJGP open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Telehealth Prescribing of Stimulants for ADHD and Associated Risk for Later Stimulant and Substance Use Disorders.The American journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
- The development, validation and application of remote blood sample collection in telehealth programmes.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Enhancing Telehealth Accessibility for Older Adults in Underserved Areas: A 4M Framework Approach.Gerontology & geriatric medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on 11 March 2020, health technologies have been rapidly scaled up to ensure access to care. A significant innovation has been telehealth in general practice. Now widespread, it remains unknown how this shift to virtual care has impacted on quality-of-care indicators such as pathology testing and diagnosis.
aimTo undertake a comparison of telehealth and face-to-face general practice consultations to: identify if there were differences in the proportion of pathology test referrals from 2019-2020; and quantify any change in pathology test collection and follow-up patterns. DESIGN &
settingRetrospective observational study of routinely collected electronic patient data from 807 general practices across New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria, Australia.
methodMultivariate generalised estimating equation models were used to estimate the proportion of pathology test referrals for overall, face-to-face, and telehealth consultations. Pathology test follow-up was described through median (and interquartile range [IQR]) time.
resultsPathology test referrals declined during periods of high COVID-19 cases, falling from 10.8% in February 2020 to a low of 4.5% during the first peak in April. Overall, pathology test referrals were lower for telehealth than face-to-face consultations. Median time between referral and test collection was 3 days (IQR 1-14) for telehealth and 1 day (IQR 0-7) for face to face.
conclusionFor telehealth to become part of routine care, it is crucial that gaps in functionality, including difficulty in test referral processes, be addressed. Quality improvements supporting care practices will ensure clinicians' workflows are supported and patients receive diagnostic testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.