Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36265039›Full record

ReviewJMIR medical informatics2022

Visit Types in Primary Care With Telehealth Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review.

Kanesha Ward, Sanjyot Vagholkar, Fareeya Sakur, Neha Nafees Khatri, Annie Y S Lau

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR medical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Telehealth Use for Mental Health Treatment Among US Adolescents.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Kanesha WardCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute for Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2145-3629
Sanjyot VagholkarPrimary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Health & Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1002-3623
Fareeya SakurCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute for Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8154-0281
Neha Nafees KhatriCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute for Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5789-8304
Annie Y S LauCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute for Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3028-4222

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTelehealth was rapidly incorporated into primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is limited evidence on which primary care visits used telehealth.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review to assess what visit types in primary care with use of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic were reported; for each visit type identified in primary care, under what circumstances telehealth was suitable; and reported benefits and drawbacks of using telehealth in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsThis study was a systematic review using narrative synthesis. Studies were obtained from four databases (Ovid [MEDLINE], CINAHL Complete, PDQ-Evidence, and ProQuest) and gray literature (NSW Health, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners guidelines, and World Health Organization guidelines). In total, 3 independent reviewers screened studies featuring telehealth use during the COVID-19 pandemic in primary care. Levels of evidence were assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Critical appraisal was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Benefits and drawbacks of telehealth were assessed according to the National Quality Forum Telehealth Framework.

resultsA total of 19 studies, predominately cross-sectional surveys or interviews (13/19, 68%), were included. Seven primary care visit types were identified: chronic condition management (17/19, 89%), existing patients (17/19, 89%), medication management (17/19, 89%), new patients (16/19, 84%), mental health/behavioral management (15/19, 79%), post-test result follow-up (14/19, 74%), and postdischarge follow-up (7/19, 37%). Benefits and drawbacks of telehealth were reported across all visit types, with chronic condition management being one of the visits reporting the greatest use because of a pre-existing patient-provider relationship, established diagnosis, and lack of complex physical examinations. Both patients and clinicians reported benefits of telehealth, including improved convenience, focused discussions, and continuity of care despite social distancing. Reported drawbacks included technical barriers, impersonal interactions, and semi-established reimbursement models.

conclusionsTelehealth was used for different visit types during the COVID-19 pandemic in primary care, with most visits for chronic condition management, existing patients, and medication management. Further research is required to validate our findings and explore the long-term impact of hybrid models of care for different visit types in primary care.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022312202; https://tinyurl.com/5n82znf4.

Indexed as

COVID-19eHealthgeneral practitionersprimary careremote consultationtelehealthtelemedicinevideo consultation

Identifiers

PMID36265039
PMCPMC9745650

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.