Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36604135›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Telehealth use in Australian primary healthcare during COVID-19: a cross-sectional descriptive survey.

Elizabeth J Halcomb, Christine Ashley, Sarah Dennis, Susan McInnes, Mark Morgan, Nicholas Zwar, Anna Williams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Prevalence and Predictors of Long COVID in Patients Accessing a National Digital Mental Health Service.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  13. 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.

Elizabeth J HalcombSchool of Nursing, University of Wollongong Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8099-986X
Christine AshleySchool of Nursing, University of Wollongong Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0559-9553
Sarah DennisSydney School of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Susan McInnesSchool of Nursing, University of Wollongong Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3113-2930
Mark MorganFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Nicholas ZwarFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Anna WilliamsSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia anna.williams@westernsydney.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to investigate Australian primary healthcare professionals' experiences of the rapid upscaling of telehealth during COVID-19.

designA cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS AND

settingTwo hundred and seventeen general practitioners, nurses and allied health professionals employed in primary healthcare settings across Australia were recruited via social media and professional organisations.

methodsAn online survey was disseminated between December 2020 and March 2021. The survey comprised items about individual demographics, experiences of delivering telehealth consultations, perceived quality of telehealth consultations and future perceptions of telehealth.

resultsTelephone was the most widely used method of providing telehealth, with less than 50% of participants using a combination of telephone and video. Key barriers to telehealth use related to the inability to undertake physical examination or physical intervention. Telehealth was perceived to improve access to healthcare for some vulnerable groups and those living in rural settings, but reduced access for people from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Quality of telehealth care was considered mostly or somewhat the same as care provided face-to-face, with actual or perceived negative outcomes related to missed or delayed diagnosis. Overwhelmingly, participants wanted telehealth to continue with guaranteed ongoing funding. Some 43.7% of participants identified the need to further improve telehealth models of care.

conclusionThe rapid shift to telehealth has facilitated ongoing care during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, further work is required to better understand how telehealth can be best harnessed to add value to service delivery in usual care.

Indexed as

COVID-19TelemedicineAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPandemicsPrimary Health CareCOVID-19Organisation of health servicesPRIMARY CAREQuality in health careTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID36604135
PMCPMC9826926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.