Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35014124›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022

Patient, clinician and manager experience of the accelerated implementation of virtual consultations following COVID-19: A qualitative study of preferences in a tertiary orthopaedic rehabilitation setting.

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

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Anthony W GilbertTherapies Department, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2526-8057
Jeremy JonesFaculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2725-0937
Maria StokesFaculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4204-0890
Carl R MayNIHR Applied Research Collaboration, North Thames, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0451-2690
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBNIHR Research Delivery Network · GBRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

NIHR Research Trainees Coordinating Centre ICA-CDRF-2017-03-025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo investigate the experiences of patients, clinicians and managers during the accelerated implementation of virtual consultations (VCs) due to COVID-19. To understand how patient preferences are constructed and organized.

methodsSemi-structured interviews with patients, clinicians and managerial staff at a single specialist orthopaedic centre in the United Kingdom. The interview schedule and coding frame were based on Normalisation Process Theory. Interviews were conducted over the telephone or by video call. Abductive analysis of interview transcripts extended knowledge from previous research to identify, characterize and explain how patient preferences for VC were formed and arranged.

resultsFifty-five participants were included (20 patients, 20 clinicians, 15 managers). Key mechanisms that contribute to the formation of patient preferences were identified. These were: (a) context for the consultation (normative expectations, relational expectations, congruence and potential); (b) the available alternatives and the implementation process (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring). Patient preferences are mediated by the clinician and organisational preferences through the influence of the consultation context, available alternatives and the implementation process.

conclusionsThis study reports the cumulative analysis of five empirical studies investigating patient preferences for VC before and during the COVID-19 pandemic as VC transitioned from an experimental clinic to a compulsory form of service delivery. This study has identified mechanisms that explain how preferences for VC come about and how these relate to organisational and clinician preferences. Since clinical pathways are shaped by interactions between patient, clinicians and organisational preferences, future service design must strike a balance between patient preferences and the preferences of clinicians and organisations. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The CONNECT Project Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group provided guidance on the conduct and design of the research. This took place with remote meetings between the lead researcher and the chair of the PPI group during March and April 2020. Patient information documentation and the interview schedule were developed with the PPI group to ensure that these were accessible.

Indexed as

COVID-19OrthopedicsHumansPandemicsQualitative ResearchReferral and Consultationclinician preferencesCOVID-19Normalisation Process Theoryorganisation preferencespatient preferencesvirtual consultations

Identifiers

PMID35014124
PMCPMC8957728
OpenAlexW4206380803

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.