Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37787186›Full record

ArticleJournal of telemedicine and telecare2025

To connect or not connect: long-term adoption of video consultations, and reasons for discontinuing use.

Irene Muli, Helena Hvitfeldt, Åsa Cajander, Lovisa Jäderlund Hagstedt, Nadia Davoody, Marina Taloyan, Maria Hägglund

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of telemedicine and telecare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Primary care video consulting: a view from Northern Europe.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Irene MuliParticipatory eHealth and Health Data Research Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-7622-5092
Helena HvitfeldtParticipatory eHealth and Health Data Research Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Åsa CajanderDepartment of Information Technology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Lovisa Jäderlund HagstedtHealth Informatics Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Nadia DavoodyHealth Informatics Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Marina TaloyanAcademic Primary Healthcare Centre, Region Stockholm, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Maria HägglundParticipatory eHealth and Health Data Research Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-6839-3651
Uppsala University · SEKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

IntroductionThis study investigates factors related to long-term and short-term adoption of video consultations (VCs) and reasons for discontinuing use among primary care patients.MethodsA sample of primary care patients using VCs with healthcare providers were invited to take a survey in a cross-sectional study. Participants were asked about their intention to continue to have video consultations in the future, and those indicating no intention to use VCs in the future (short-term adopters) were asked about their reasons for this. Prevalence and statistical differences between long-term and short-term adopters were investigated.ResultsThere were several statistically significant differences between long-term and short-term adopters (76% vs. 24%). Long-term adopters consisted of more middle-aged individuals (35-54 years) and the majority worked full-time (56%). They had more positive opinions of VCs and used VCs and video meetings for other purposes to a larger extent. They chose VCs because of the lack of time to go to the healthcare centre and because their provider offered them. The most common reason for discontinuing use was a preference for face-to-face consultations, with the youngest age group (16-34 years) reporting this to a larger extent.DiscussionYounger and older age groups may be less likely to continue the use of VCs, potentially preserving the digital divide. Additionally, disparities in using similar technologies might contribute to the digital divide. Moreover, convenience, positive opinions of VCs, and experience with VCs were related to long-term adoption. Further studies are needed to explore non-use, age's influence, and address usability issues.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareRemote ConsultationVideoconferencingAdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareTime FactorsYoung AdulteHealthprimary caresurveySwedentelehealthvideo consultationswillingness to practice‌

Identifiers

PMID37787186
PMCPMC12044205
OpenAlexW4387297091

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.