Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38465292›Full record

ReviewDigital health

Experiences of remote consultation in UK primary care for patients with mental health conditions: A systematic review.

Serena Antonio, David Joseph, Joanne Parsons, Helen Atherton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digital health. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors.

Serena AntonioWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2577-9718
David JosephWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Joanne ParsonsWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6542-8492
Helen AthertonWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: There has been a rapid shift from face-to-face to remote consultation across healthcare settings. 90% of patients with mental health conditions are cared for entirely in primary care. Remote consultation can present challenges and benefits for patients with mental health conditions. The aim of this systematic review was to collate and examine the evidence relating to remote consultation in UK primary care on the experiences of patients with mental health conditions. Methods: Six major databases were searched for empirical studies published in the English language between 1 January 2010 and 21 October 2022. Studies were included where remote consultation occurred between a patient and primary care clinician. Outcomes of interest include mode of remote consultation, patient experiences and characteristics. Final included studies were assessed for quality, and results analysed with narrative synthesis. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria, covering a range of mental health conditions and remote consultation modalities (telephone, video, online, email, text-based). Patients were overall satisfied with remote consultation, with particular benefit for certain mental health conditions or anxious patients. However, several studies found that face-to-face was the preferred method, with highlighted negatives to remote consultation, such as inflexibility of online formats. Acceptability of remote consultation is context specific and influenced by the purpose of the consultation and individual patient. Remote consultation may reduce anxiety in some patients, but is potentially less acceptable than face-to-face for relational appointments. Conclusions: Acceptability of remote consultation is context dependent. There is a lack of evidence surrounding patient characteristics and access to remote consultation.

Indexed as

mental healthpatient acceptance of health carepatient satisfactionPrimary careremote consultation

Identifiers

PMID38465292
PMCPMC10924560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.