Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37647117›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2023

The Impact of Virtual Consultations on the Quality of Primary Care: Systematic Review.

Kate Campbell, Geva Greenfield, Edmond Li, Niki O'Brien, Benedict Hayhoe, Thomas Beaney, Azeem Majeed, Ana Luísa Neves

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
24.6field-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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kate CampbellDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0001-6533-2781
Geva GreenfieldDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9779-2486
Edmond LiInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8209-4490
Niki O'BrienInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8389-1448
Benedict HayhoeDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2645-6191
Thomas BeaneyDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9709-7264
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2357-9858
Ana Luísa NevesDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7107-7211
Imperial College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe adoption of virtual consultations, catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic, has transformed the delivery of primary care services. Owing to their rapid global proliferation, there is a need to comprehensively evaluate the impact of virtual consultations on all aspects of care quality.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the impact of virtual consultations on the quality of primary care.

methodsA total of 6 databases were searched. Studies that evaluated the impact of virtual consultations, for any disease, were included. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were performed by 2 pairs of investigators. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis of the results was performed.

resultsIn total, 30 studies (5,469,333 participants) were included in this review. Our findings suggest that virtual consultations are equally effective to or more effective than face-to-face care for the management of certain conditions, including mental illness, excessive smoking, and alcohol consumption. Overall, 4 studies indicated positive impacts on some aspects of patient-centeredness; however, a negative impact was noted on patients' perceived autonomy support (ie, the degree to which people perceive those in positions of authority to be autonomy supportive). Virtual consultations may reduce waiting times, lower patient costs, and reduce rates of follow-up in secondary and tertiary care settings. Evidence for the impact on clinical safety is extremely limited. Evidence regarding equity was considerably mixed. Overall, it appears that virtual care is more likely to be used by younger, female patients, with disparities among other subgroups depending on contextual factors.

conclusionsOur systematic review demonstrated that virtual consultations may be as effective as face-to-face care and have a potentially positive impact on the efficiency and timeliness of care; however, there is a considerable lack of evidence on the impacts on patient safety, equity, and patient-centeredness, highlighting areas where future research efforts should be devoted. Capitalizing on real-world data, as well as clinical trials, is crucial to ensure that the use of virtual consultations is tailored according to patient needs and is inclusive of the intended end users. Data collection methods that are bespoke to the primary care context and account for patient characteristics are necessary to generate a stronger evidence base to inform future virtual care policies.

Indexed as

COVID-19Alcohol DrinkingFemaleHumansPandemicsPrimary Health CareReferral and Consultationefficiencyprimary carequality careremote consultationssocioeconomic statussystematic reviewteleconsulttelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID37647117
PMCPMC10500356
OpenAlexW4386271961

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.