Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38354211›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2024

Use of telemedicine in general practice in Europe since the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review of patient and practitioner perspectives.

David Walley, Geoff McCombe, John Broughan, Conor O'Shea, Des Crowley, Diarmuid Quinlan, Catherine Wann, Tadhg Crowley, Walter Cullen

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.6field-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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. What patients want from access to UK general practice: systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David WalleyUCD School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Geoff McCombeUCD School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4898-3459
John BroughanUCD School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5084-8507
Conor O'SheaIrish College of General Practitioners, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3445-2366
Des CrowleyUCD School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8491-9596
Diarmuid QuinlanIrish College of General Practitioners, Dublin, Ireland.
Catherine WannNobber Health Centre, Nobber, Ireland.
Tadhg CrowleyAyrfield Medical Practice, Kilkenny, Ireland.
Walter CullenUCD School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
University College Dublin · IESt. Luke's General Hospital · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

General practice is generally the first point of contact for patients presenting with COVID-19. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic general practitioners (GPs) across Europe have had to adopt to using telemedicine consultations in order to minimise the number of social contacts made. GPs had to balance two needs: preventing the spread of COVID-19, while providing their patients with regular care for other health issues. The aim of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the literature examining the use of telemedicine for delivering routine general practice care since the start of the pandemic from the perspectives of patients and practitioners. The six-stage framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley, with recommendations by Levac et al was used to review the existing literature. The study selection process was conducted according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Braun and Clarke's' Thematic Analysis' approach was used to interpret data. A total of eighteen studies across nine countries were included in the review. Thirteen studies explored the practitioner perspective of the use of telemedicine in general practice since the COVID-19 pandemic, while five studies looked at the patient perspective. The types of studies included were: qualitative studies, literature reviews, a systematic review, observational studies, quantitative studies, Critical incident technique study, and surveys employing both closed and open styled questions. Key themes identified related to the patient/ practitioner experience and knowledge of using telemedicine, patient/ practitioner levels of satisfaction, GP collaboration, nature of workload, and suitability of consultations for telemedicine. The nature of general practice was radically changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Certain patient groups and areas of clinical and administrative work were identified as having performed well, if not better, by using telemedicine. Our findings suggest a level of acceptability and satisfaction of telemedicine by GPs and patients during the pandemic; however, further research is warranted in this area.

Identifiers

PMID38354211
PMCPMC10866456
OpenAlexW4391807746

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.