Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36279172›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2022

Understanding How the Design and Implementation of Online Consultations Affect Primary Care Quality: Systematic Review of Evidence With Recommendations for Designers, Providers, and Researchers.

Sarah Darley, Tessa Coulson, Niels Peek, Susan Moschogianis, Sabine N van der Veer, David C Wong, Benjamin C Brown

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Impact of the clinically oriented roles of a general practice receptionist: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Technostress, technosuffering, and relational strain: a multi-method qualitative study of how remote and digital work affects staff in UK general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah DarleyDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5420-6774
Tessa CoulsonNational Health Service Salford Clinical Commissioning Group, Salford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2080-5653
Niels PeekCentre for Health Informatics, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6393-9969
Susan MoschogianisDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7002-7933
Sabine N van der VeerCentre for Health Informatics, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0929-436X
David C WongCentre for Health Informatics, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8117-9193
Benjamin C BrownDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9975-4782
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBNational Health Service · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 209593/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline consultations (OCs) allow patients to contact their care providers on the web. Worldwide, OCs have been rolled out in primary care rapidly owing to policy initiatives and COVID-19. There is a lack of evidence regarding how OC design and implementation influence care quality.

objectiveWe aimed to synthesize research on the impacts of OCs on primary care quality, and how these are influenced by system design and implementation.

methodsWe searched databases from January 2010 to February 2022. We included quantitative and qualitative studies of real-world OC use in primary care. Quantitative data were transformed into qualitative themes. We used thematic synthesis informed by the Institute of Medicine domains of health care quality, and framework analysis informed by the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability framework. Strength of evidence was judged using the GRADE-CERQual approach.

resultsWe synthesized 63 studies from 9 countries covering 31 OC systems, 14 (22%) of which used artificial intelligence; 41% (26/63) of studies were published from 2020 onward, and 17% (11/63) were published after the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no quantitative evidence for negative impacts of OCs on patient safety, and qualitative studies suggested varied perceptions of their safety. Some participants believed OCs improved safety, particularly when patients could describe their queries using free text. Staff workload decreased when sufficient resources were allocated to implement OCs and patients used them for simple problems or could describe their queries using free text. Staff workload increased when OCs were not integrated with other software or organizational workflows and patients used them for complex queries. OC systems that required patients to describe their queries using multiple-choice questionnaires increased workload for patients and staff. Health costs decreased when patients used OCs for simple queries and increased when patients used them for complex queries. Patients using OCs were more likely to be female, younger, and native speakers, with higher socioeconomic status. OCs increased primary care access for patients with mental health conditions, verbal communication difficulties, and barriers to attending in-person appointments. Access also increased by providing a timely response to patients' queries. Patient satisfaction increased when using OCs owing to better primary care access, although it decreased when using multiple-choice questionnaire formats.

conclusionsThis is the first theoretically informed synthesis of research on OCs in primary care and includes studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. It contributes new knowledge that, in addition to having positive impacts on care quality such as increased access, OCs also have negative impacts such as increased workload. Negative impacts can be mitigated through appropriate OC system design (eg, free text format), incorporation of advanced technologies (eg, artificial intelligence), and integration into technical infrastructure (eg, software) and organizational workflows (eg, timely responses).

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020191802; https://tinyurl.com/2p84ezjy.

Indexed as

COVID-19Artificial IntelligenceFemaleHumansMalePandemicsQuality of Health CareReferral and ConsultationUnited Statescare providerCOVID-19general practicehealth care professionalhealth outcomeOCpandemicpatient careprimary careprimary health careremote consultationsystematic reviewtelemedicinetriageworkforce

Identifiers

PMID36279172
PMCPMC9621309
OpenAlexW4281898180

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.