Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35256447›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Use and usability of GP online services: a mixed-methods sequential study, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on qualitative interviews, analysis of routine eConsult usage and feedback data, and assessment of GP websites in Devon and Cornwall, England.

Ray B Jones, John Tredinnick-Rowe, Rebecca Baines, Inocencio Daniel Cortes Maramba, Arunangsu Chatterjee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. What patients want from access to UK general practice: systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Access to general practice appointments and sustainable change: a focused ethnographic case study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Access systems in general practice: a systematic scoping review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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.

Ray B JonesCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK ray.jones@plymouth.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2963-3421
John Tredinnick-RoweCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1154-7410
Rebecca BainesCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9857-1976
Inocencio Daniel Cortes MarambaCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5464-6021
Arunangsu ChatterjeeCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9506-6007

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe explored use and usability of general practitioner (GP) online services.

settingDevon and Cornwall, England.

designMixed-methods sequential study based on qualitative interviews, analysis of routine eConsult usage and feedback data, and assessment of GP websites.

methodsFirst, we interviewed 32 staff and 18 patients from seven practices in June 2018. Second, we used routinely collected consultation meta-data and, third, patient feedback data for all practices using eConsult from June 2018 to March 2021. Lastly, we examined GP websites' usability in January 2020 and September 2021.

resultsInterviews suggested practices infrequently involved patients in eConsult implementation. Some patients 'gamed' the system to achieve what they wanted. Usage data showed a major increase in eConsult resulting from COVID-19. Women used eConsult twice as much as men. Older had similar eConsult consultation rates to younger patients. Patient feedback forms were completed for fewer than 3% of consultations. Patients were mostly satisfied with eConsult but some had concerns about its length and repetitiveness, lack of continuity over time and between eConsult and medical records. We did not find clear evidence that patients' suggested improvements were acted on. Finally, few GP websites met accessibility guidelines and may hinder access to online national services such as eConsult.

conclusionGiven that, face to face, older people consult more, usage data suggest that older people have reduced online access. That the female-to-male ratio of eConsult use use was even greater than 'traditional' face-to-face ratio was unexpected and needs further research. Although eConsult collects and uses routine patient feedback to improve the system, more open systems for patient feedback, such as Care Opinion, may be more effective in helping online systems evolve. Lastly, we question the need for GP websites and suggest that national or regional services are better placed to maintain accessible services.

Indexed as

COVID-19General PractitionersAgedEnglandFeedbackFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMalePandemicsPrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationSARS-CoV-2health informaticsinformation technologyprimary care

Identifiers

PMID35256447
PMCPMC8905989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.