Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35763049›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023

Patient experience of virtual urogynaecology services during Covid-19 pandemic.

Victoria Kershaw, Zarnigar Khan, Stephen Radley

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Victoria KershawSheffield Teaching Hospitals, Jessop Wing, Tree Root Walk, Broomhall, Sheffield, S10 2SF, UK. victoria.kershaw@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2973-6495
Zarnigar KhanMedical School, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Broomhall, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
Stephen RadleySheffield Teaching Hospitals, Jessop Wing, Tree Root Walk, Broomhall, Sheffield, S10 2SF, UK.
Jessop Hospital · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisDue to increasing burden on outpatient services, there is a drive from NHS policy makers to utilise virtual clinics to help curb unsustainable demand. During the COVID-19 pandemic, urogynaecology clinics were converted to telephone consultation (TC). We used this opportunity to evaluate patient perspective and identify which patients may be best suited to TC.

methodsPostal questionnaires were sent to patients following urogynaecology TCs in May to June 2020. Clinical outcome data were obtained from electronic records. The survey combined three validated tools: QQ-10, Patient Enablement Index (PEI) and NHS Friends and Family Test (NHS-FFT). Qualitative and quantitative data were analysed.

resultsOf the 308 patients contacted, 165 responded (54%). Eighty-six percent of patients described their experience of TC as "very good" or "good" (NHS-FFT). Positive themes included convenience, thoroughness and feeling at ease in terms of communicating intimate symptoms. QQ-10 results demonstrated a mean value score of 77 and a mean burden score of 17 (range 0-100); 72% of patients "strongly" or "mostly" agreed to repeat TC. Following TC, 22% of patients were discharged, 72% required follow-up and 37% needed face-to-face (F2F) consultation. Post-operative patients and those with lower urinary tract symptoms benefited most, whereas many prolapse patients required F2F consultation.

conclusionsWe report the largest qualitative and quantitative study of patient experience of TC in urogynaecology. TC is a convenient, acceptable and effective medium for conducting patient care. TC can support patients in communicating intimate symptoms with health professionals.

Indexed as

COVID-19TelemedicineHumansPandemicsPatient Outcome AssessmentReferral and ConsultationTelephonePatient experiencePEIQQ-10TelemedicineUrogynaecologyVirtual healthcare

Identifiers

PMID35763049
PMCPMC9244158
OpenAlexW4283699925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.