Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35743944›Full record

ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Healthcare Professionals' Experience of Performing Digital Care Visits-A Scoping Review.

Ieva Lampickienė, Nadia Davoody

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 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. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

2 authors.

Ieva LampickienėHealth Informatics Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institute, Tomtebodavägen 18A, 171 77 Solna, Sweden.
Nadia DavoodyHealth Informatics Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institute, Tomtebodavägen 18A, 171 77 Solna, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1813-8529

Funding

Karolinska Institute There is no grant number.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of digital care visits has been increasing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Learning more about healthcare professionals' technology experiences provides valuable insight and a basis for improving digital visits. This study aimed to explore the existing literature on healthcare professionals' experience performing digital care visits. A scoping review was performed following Arksey & O'Malley's proposed framework using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. The collected data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Five main themes were identified in the literature: positive experiences/benefits, facilitators, negative experiences/challenges, barriers, and suggestions for improvement. Healthcare professionals mostly reported having an overall positive experience with digital visits and discovered benefits for themselves and the patients. However, opinions were mixed or negative regarding the complexity of decision making, workload and workflow, suitability of this type of care, and other challenges. The suggestions for improvement included training and education, improvements within the system and tools, along with support for professionals. Despite overall positive experiences and benefits for both professionals and patients, clinicians reported challenges such as physical barriers, technical issues, suitability concerns, and others. Digital care visits could not fully replace face-to-face visits.

Indexed as

digital care visithealthcare personnelmedical staffonline consultationuser experience

Identifiers

PMID35743944
PMCPMC9225275

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.