ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023
Patient experience of virtual urogynaecology services during Covid-19 pandemic.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Outcomes of Transcutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation: Face-to-Face Versus Telehealth Tuition.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Patients' Preference Regarding Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Cross-Sectional Multicenter Study.Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Impact of a Urogynecology Telehealth Consultation on Genital Self-Image and Sexual Function After Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Benefit of a Urogynecologic Telehealth Consultation after Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- The construct validity of an abridged version of the general self-efficacy scale for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.