Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34821560›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2021

Guidance for Implementing Video Consultations in Danish General Practice: Rapid Cycle Coproduction Study.

Amanda Sandbæk, Line Due Christensen, Lotte Lykke Larsen, Nina Primholdt Christensen, Frida Greek Kofod, Ann Dorrit Guassora, Camilla Hoffmann Merrild, Elisabeth Assing Hvidt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 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
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Amanda Sandbæk *Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4983-2268
Line Due Christensen *Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4801-4335
Lotte Lykke LarsenCenter for General Practice at Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1020-7980
Nina Primholdt ChristensenResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3634-6877
Frida Greek KofodThe Research Unit and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0612-2012
Ann Dorrit GuassoraThe Research Unit and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4565-4705
Camilla Hoffmann MerrildCenter for General Practice at Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2444-3311
Elisabeth Assing HvidtResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3762-8478

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has changed various spheres of health care. General practitioners (GPs) have widely replaced face-to-face consultations with telephone or video consultations (VCs) to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Using VCs for health service delivery is an entirely new way of practicing for many GPs. However, this transition process has largely been conducted with no formal guidelines, which may have caused implementation barriers. This study presents a rapid cycle coproduction approach for developing a guide to assist VC implementation in general practice.

objectiveThe aim of this paper is to describe the developmental phases of the VC guide to assist general practices in implementing VCs and summarize the evaluation made by general practice users.

methodsThe development of a guide for VC in general practice was structured as a stepped process based on the coproduction and prototyping processes. We used an iterative framework based on rapid qualitative analyses and interdisciplinary collaborations. Thus, the guide was developed in small, repeated cycles of development, implementation, evaluation, and adaptation, with a continuous exchange between research and practice. The data collection process was structured in 3 main phases. First, we conducted a literature review, recorded observations, and held informal and semistructured interviews. Second, we facilitated coproduction with stakeholders through 4 workshops with GPs, a group interview with patient representatives, and individual revisions by GPs. Third, nationwide testing was conducted in 5 general practice clinics and was followed by an evaluation of the guide through interviews with GPs.

resultsA rapid cycle coproduction approach was used to explore the needs of general practice in connection with the implementation of VC and to develop useful, relevant, and easily understandable guiding materials. Our findings suggest that a guide for VCs should include advice and recommendations regarding the organization of VCs, the technical setup, the appropriate target groups, patients' use of VCs, the performance of VCs, and the arrangements for booking a VC.

conclusionsThe combination of coproduction, prototyping, small iterations, and rapid data analysis is a suitable approach when contextually rich, hands-on guide materials are urgently needed. Moreover, this method could provide an efficient way of developing relevant guide materials for general practice to aid the implementation of new technology beyond the pandemic period.

Indexed as

communicationcoproductiongeneral practiceimplementation scienceintervention developmentrapid analysisremote consultationresource guidevideo consultationworkshop

Identifiers

PMID34821560
PMCPMC8663649

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.