SynthesisJournal of patient-reported outcomes2023
Patient-reported experiences and outcomes of virtual care during COVID-19: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Future of Telehealth-Based Psychological and Mind-Body Interventions for People With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review.Journal of digestive diseasesPooled it
- User-Centered Virtual Clinic Services for Remote, Rural, and Underserved Sub-Saharan Africa: Development and Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Program cost and return on investment analysis of remote patient monitoring for hypertension management in the cardiology department of a large healthcare system.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2026Article
- A mixed-methods study comparing clinical and patient-reported perspectives on long COVID: insights from electronic health records and narrative journal entries.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Observational
- Virtual family-centred rounds support high-quality care in paediatric inpatients: A mixed-methods process evaluation.Paediatrics & child health · 2026Article
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Patient Perspectives on Virtual vs In-Person Posttreatment Care for Brain Metastases.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Patient's Perceptions of a Centralized Virtual Ward for Remote Patient Monitoring in Primary Care: Qualitative Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Factors that influence the uptake of virtual care solutions in Australian primary care practice: a systematic scoping review.JBI evidence implementation · 2025Article
- Expert consensus on implementing patient-reported outcomes in telehealth: findings from an international Delphi study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Effects of Virtual Care on Patient and Provider Experience of the Clinical Encounter: Qualitative Hermeneutic Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe onset of COVID-19 has caused an international upheaval of traditional in-person approaches to care delivery. Rapid system-level transitions to virtual care provision restrict the ability of healthcare professionals to evaluate care quality from the patient's perspective. This poses challenges to ensuring that patient-centered care is upheld within virtual environments. To address this, the study's objective was to review how virtual care has impacted patient experiences and outcomes during COVID-19, through the use of patient-reported experience and outcome measures (PREMs and PROMs), respectively.
methodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines to evaluate patient responsiveness to virtual care during COVID-19. Using an exhaustive search strategy, relevant peer-reviewed articles published between January 2020 and 2022 were pulled from MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsychInfo databases. Study quality was independently assessed by two reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A patient partner was consulted throughout the study to provide feedback and co-conduct the review.
resultsAfter removing duplicates, 6048 articles underwent title and abstract review, from which 644 studies were included in the full-text review stage. Following this, 102 articles were included in the study. Studies were published in 20 different countries, were predominantly cross-sectional, and reported on the delivery of virtual care in specialized adult outpatient settings. This review identified 29 validated PREMs and 43 PROMs. Several advantages to virtual care were identified, with patients citing greater convenience, (such as saving travel time and cost, less waiting experienced to see care providers) and increased protection from viral spread. Some studies also reported challenges patients and caregivers faced with virtual care, including feeling rushed during the virtual care appointment, lack of physical contact or examination presenting barriers, difficulty with communicating symptoms, and technology issues.
conclusionThis review provides supportive evidence of virtual care experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic from patient and caregiver perspectives. This research provides a comprehensive overview of what patient-reported measures can be used to record virtual care quality amid and following the pandemic. Further research into healthcare professionals' perspectives would offer a supportive lens toward a strong person-centered healthcare system.
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.