Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37647120›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Evaluation Strategies for Understanding Experiences With Virtual Care in Canada: Mixed Methods Study.

Shelley Vanderhout, Ellen B Goldbloom, Amy Li, Dennis Newhook, Meghan Garcia, Catherine Dulude

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shelley VanderhoutChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6328-2680
Ellen B GoldbloomChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6582-2924
Amy LiChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7082-7244
Dennis NewhookChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8179-9787
Meghan GarciaChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9615-2900
Catherine Dulude *Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7044-7914
Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVirtual care was rapidly integrated into pediatric health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. While virtual care offers many benefits, it is necessary to better understand the experiences of those who receive, deliver, and coordinate virtual care in order to support sustainable, high-quality, and patient-centered health care. To date, methods implemented to evaluate users' experiences of virtual care have been highly variable, making comparison and data synthesis difficult.

objectiveThis study aims to describe evaluation strategies currently used to understand personal experiences with pediatric virtual care in Canada.

methodsIn this mixed methods environmental scan, we first distributed a web-based questionnaire to clinical, research, and operational leaders delivering and evaluating pediatric virtual care in Canada. The questionnaire collected information about how experiences with virtual care have been or are currently being evaluated and whether these evaluations included the perspectives of children or youth, families, providers, or support staff. Second, respondents were asked to share the questions they used in their evaluations, and a content analysis was performed to identify common question categories. Third, we conducted semistructured interviews to further explore our respondents' evaluation experiences across 4 domains-evaluation approaches, distribution methods, response rates, and lessons learned-and interest in a core set of questions for future evaluations.

resultsThere were 72 respondents to the web-based questionnaire; among those who had conducted an evaluation, we identified 15 unique evaluations, and 14 of those provided a copy of the tools used to evaluate virtual care. These evaluations measured the virtual care experiences of parents or caregivers (n=15, 100%), children or youth (n=11, 73%), health care providers (n=11, 73%), and support staff (n=4, 27%). The most common data collection method used was electronic questionnaires distributed by email. Two respondents used validated tools; the remainder modified existing tools or developed new tools. Content analysis of the 14 submitted questionnaires revealed that the most common questions were about overall participant satisfaction, the comparison of virtual care to in-person care, and whether participants would choose virtual care options in the future. Interview findings indicate respondents frequently relied on methods used by peers and that a standardized, core set of questions to evaluate experiences with virtual care would be helpful to improve evaluation practices and support pediatric health care delivery.

conclusionsAt our institution and elsewhere in Canada, experiences with pediatric virtual care have been evaluated using a variety of methods. A more consistent evaluation approach using standardized tools may enable more regular comparisons of experiences with virtual care and the synthesis of findings across health care settings. In turn, this may better inform our approach to virtual care, improve its integration into health systems, and facilitate sustainable, high-quality, patient-centered care.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdolescentCanadaChildElectronic MailElectronicsHumansPandemicsenvironmental scanexperienceinterviewspediatricstelemedicinevirtual care

Identifiers

PMID37647120
PMCPMC10500354
OpenAlexW4385399344

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.