Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38128925›Full record

Observational studyJournal of telemedicine and telecare2025

Attendance at remote versus in-person outpatient appointments in an NHS Trust.

Gabriele Kerr, Geva Greenfield, Benedict Hayhoe, Fiona Gaughran, Kristoffer Halvorsrud, Mariana Pinto da Costa, Nirandeep Rehill, Rosalind Raine, Azeem Majeed, Ceire Costelloe and 2 more

Abstract readObservational StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Observational study 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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Multicomponent services for symptoms in serious respiratory illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

12 authors.

Gabriele KerrDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3170-3211
Geva GreenfieldDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Benedict HayhoeDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Fiona GaughranInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Kristoffer HalvorsrudNIHR Applied Research Collaboration South London, London, UK.
Mariana Pinto da CostaInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Nirandeep RehillNIHR Applied Research Collaboration North Thames, London, UK.
Rosalind RaineNIHR Applied Research Collaboration North Thames, London, UK.
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Ceire CostelloeDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Ana Luisa NevesDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7107-7211
Thomas BeaneyDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

IntroductionWith the growing use of remote appointments within the National Health Service, there is a need to understand potential barriers of access to care for some patients. In this observational study, we examined missed appointments rates, comparing remote and in-person appointments among different patient groups.MethodsWe analysed adult outpatient appointments at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in Northwest London in 2021. Rates of missed appointments per patient were compared between remote versus in-person appointments using negative binomial regression models. Models were stratified by appointment type (first or a follow-up).ResultsThere were 874,659 outpatient appointments for 189,882 patients, 29.5% of whom missed at least one appointment. Missed rates were 12.5% for remote first appointments and 9.2% for in-person first appointments. Remote and in-person follow-up appointments were missed at similar rates (10.4% and 10.7%, respectively). For remote and in-person appointments, younger patients, residents of more deprived areas, and patients of Black, Mixed and 'other' ethnicities missed more appointments. Male patients missed more in-person appointments, particularly at younger ages, but gender differences were minimal for remote appointments. Patients with long-term conditions (LTCs) missed more first appointments, whether in-person or remote. In follow-up appointments, patients with LTCs missed more in-person appointments but fewer remote appointments.DiscussionRemote first appointments were missed more often than in-person first appointments, follow-up appointments had similar attendance rates for both modalities. Sociodemographic differences in outpatient appointment attendance were largely similar between in-person and remote appointments, indicating no widening of inequalities in attendance due to appointment modality.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareAppointments and SchedulesPatient ComplianceAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansLondonMaleMiddle AgedNo-Show PatientsState MedicineYoung AdulteHealthremote consultationtelecaretelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID38128925
PMCPMC12095891

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.