ArticleIntegrated healthcare journal2022
Integrated virtual medical consultations versus traditional clinic care in a public and a private outpatient service.
Article in Integrated healthcare journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The iConnect Care programme provided integrated 'virtual care' (VC) for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District. VC is an alternative to outpatient care which expedites time to specialists' opinions and is safe. Comparing different outpatient care models is important to understand the role of telehealth and integrated care, especially following the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to compare a VC model with existing CKD outpatient care. Design participants and setting: A multisite, comparative, retrospective cohort study with parallel groups. 374 patients with mild CKD were recruited (July 2013 and August 2015) from public and private outpatients and followed for 12 months (n=304) or via VC (n=70). Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR) were compared at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Results: At 12 months, no significant differences existed among groups in eGFR or ACR or haemoglobin, but serum creatinine was lower in the VC cohort. A significant difference existed in time to see a patient from time of referral; 7 days for VC clinic and 35-42 days for outpatient clinic. Patients interviewed felt VC was efficient and they were well managed. Conclusion: VC can be a faster mechanism to access a nephrologist and other specialists. It provided similar outcomes to outpatient care. VC represents an additional assessment and follow-up pathway supported in the community. Time to deliver is similar, but specific resources are needed. It has the potential to evolve into a standard component of chronic disease care.
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.