ArticleBMJ open2023
Validity of patients' online reviews at direct-to-consumer teleconsultation platforms: a protocol for a cross-sectional study using unannounced standardised patients.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing the Quality of Direct-to-Consumer Telemedicine Dominated and Delivered by Public and Private Sector Platforms in China: Standardized Patient Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Innovative approaches of measuring care quality in China's market for telemedicine.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAs direct-to-consumer teleconsultation (hereafter referred to as 'teleconsultation') has gained popularity, an increasing number of patients have been leaving online reviews of their teleconsultation experiences. These reviews can help guide patients in identifying doctors for teleconsultation. However, few studies have examined the validity of online reviews in assessing the quality of teleconsultation against a gold standard. Therefore, we aim to use unannounced standardised patients (USPs) to validate online reviews in assessing both the technical and patient-centred quality of teleconsultations. We hypothesise that online review results will be more consistent with the patient-centred quality, rather than the technical quality, as assessed by the USPs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this cross-sectional study, USPs representing 11 common primary care conditions will randomly visit 253 physicians via the three largest teleconsultation platforms in China. Each physician will receive a text-based and a voice/video-based USP visit, resulting in a total of 506 USP visits. The USP will complete a quality checklist to assess the proportion of clinical practice guideline-recommended items during teleconsultation. After each visit, the USP will also complete the Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness Rating. The USP-assessed results will be compared with online review results using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). If ICC >0.4 (p<0.05), we will assume reasonable concordance between the USP-assessed quality and online reviews. Furthermore, we will use correlation analysis, Lin's Coordinated Correlation Coefficient and Kappa as supplementary analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received approval from the Institutional Review Board of Southern Medical University (#Southern Medical Audit (2022) No. 013). Results will be actively disseminated through print and social media, and USP tools will be made available for other researchers.
trial registrationThe study has been registered at the China Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR2200062975).
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.