Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36882013›Full record

ArticleFamily practice2023

General practice trainees' telehealth use during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study.

Katie Fisher, Amanda Tapley, Anna Ralston, Andrew Davey, Alison Fielding, Mieke van Driel, Elizabeth Holliday, Jean Ball, Jason Dizon, Neil Spike and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Family practice, 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
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

12 authors.

Katie FisherUniversity of Newcastle, School of Medicine and Public Health, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2256-2624
Amanda TapleyUniversity of Newcastle, School of Medicine and Public Health, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1536-5518
Anna RalstonUniversity of Newcastle, School of Medicine and Public Health, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4713-4930
Andrew DaveyUniversity of Newcastle, School of Medicine and Public Health, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7547-779X
Alison FieldingUniversity of Newcastle, School of Medicine and Public Health, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5884-3068
Mieke van DrielUniversity of Queensland, Faculty of Medicine, General Practice Clinical Unit, Level 8 Health Sciences Building, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1711-9553
Elizabeth HollidayUniversity of Newcastle, School of Medicine and Public Health, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4066-6224
Jean BallHunter Medical Research Institute, Clinical Research Design, IT and Statistical Support Unit (CReDITSS), New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5402-6415
Jason DizonHunter Medical Research Institute, Clinical Research Design, IT and Statistical Support Unit (CReDITSS), New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2450-8429
Neil SpikeEastern Victoria General Practice Training, Regional Training Organisation, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9694-8642
Lisa ClarkeGeneral Practice Training Tasmania, Regional Training Organisation, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Parker MaginUniversity of Newcastle, School of Medicine and Public Health, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8071-8749

Funding

Australian Department of HealthAustralian GovernmentRACGP Foundation CBW2021-01The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, remuneration was introduced for Australian general practice telehealth consultations. General practitioner (GP) trainees' telehealth use is of clinical, educational, and policy importance. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and associations of telehealth versus face-to-face consultations amongst Australian GP registrars (vocational GP trainees).

methodsCross-sectional analysis of data from the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) study, from 2020 to 2021 (three 6-month terms), including registrars in 3 of Australia's 9 Regional Training Organisations. In ReCEnT, GP registrars record details of 60 consecutive consultations, 6 monthly. The primary analysis used univariate and multivariable logistic regression, with outcome of whether the consultation was conducted via telehealth (phone and videoconference) or face-to-face.

results1,168 registrars recorded details of 102,286 consultations, of which 21.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.1%-21.6%) were conducted via telehealth. Statistically significant associations of a telehealth consultation included shorter consultation duration (odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% CI: 0.93-0.94; and mean 12.9 versus 18.7 min); fewer problems addressed per consultation (OR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.87-0.97); being less likely to seek assistance from a supervisor (OR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.76-0.96) while being more likely to generate learning goals (OR 1.18, 95% CI: 1.02-1.37); and being more likely to arrange a follow-up consultation (OR 1.18, 95% CI: 1.02-1.35).

conclusionsThat telehealth consultations were shorter, with higher rates of follow-up, has GP workforce/workload implications. That telehealth consultations were less likely to involve in-consultation supervisor support, but more likely to generate learning goals, has educational implications.

Indexed as

COVID-19General PracticeGeneral PractitionersTelemedicineAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPandemicseducationfamily practicegeneral practicegraduatemedicaltelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID36882013
PMCPMC10745257

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.