Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35362191›Full record

ReviewJournal of advanced nursing2022

Patients' and clinicians' experiences of remote consultation? A narrative synthesis.

Helen Walthall, Sue Schutz, Joanne Snowball, Raluca Vagner, Nicola Fernandez, Emilia Bartram

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of advanced nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

6 authors.

Helen WalthallOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.
Sue SchutzOxford Brookes University and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1441-0495
Joanne SnowballOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.
Raluca VagnerOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.
Nicola FernandezOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.
Emilia BartramOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo identify, evaluate and summarize evidence of patient and clinician experiences of being involved in video or telephone consultations as a replacement for in-person consultations.

designNarrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Medline; EMBASE; EMCARE; CINAHL and BNI. Searching took place from January 2021 to April 2021. Papers included were published between 2013 and 2020. REVIEW

methodsPapers were appraised by two independent reviewers for methodological quality. Data extraction was conducted according to the standardized tool from Joanna Briggs Institute.

resultsSeven qualitative studies were included, from five countries and from the perspective of patients, relatives, administrators, nurses, physiotherapists and physicians. We developed two main themes: Pragmatic Concerns and Therapeutic Concerns. Each theme contained two categories: Pragmatic Concerns: (a) the convenience of non-face to face consultations; (b) using technology and equipment in a consultation; Therapeutic Concerns (c) building therapeutic relationships; and (d) embracing benefits and addressing challenges.

conclusionThis narrative synthesis presents the existing evidence on clinician and patient experience of participating in non-face to face consultations. Experiences are varied but largely focus on communication and forming relationships, using the technology successfully and the ability for patients to self-manage with support from clinicians who are not in-person. More high-quality studies are required to explore the experiences of patients and clinicians accessing remote consultations as a result of global implementation post-SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to identify any learning and education opportunities. IMPACT: Health care staff can provide high-quality care through video or telephone appointments as well as face to face appointments. This review has, however, identified that the evidence is limited and weak in this area and recommends there is research further to inform practice and influence future care.

Indexed as

COVID-19Remote ConsultationHumansQualitative ResearchTelephonenarrative synthesisnursingSARS-CoV-2technological communicationtelehealthtelemedicinetelephone consultationvideo consultation

Identifiers

PMID35362191
PMCPMC9321562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.