ArticlePrimary health care research & development2024
Patients' and professionals' experiences with remote care during COVID-19: a qualitative study in general practices in low-income neighborhoods.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Impact of Digitalization on European General Practice From the Perspective of General Practitioners: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Hybrid Care Modifications in the Delivery of Nonpandemic Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo explore how patients and general practice professionals in low-income neighborhoods experienced the increase of remote care during COVID-19.
backgroundAs the GP (general practitioner) is the first point of contact in Dutch health care, there are concerns about access to remote care for patients from low-income neighborhoods. Now that general practice professionals have returned to the pre-pandemic ways of healthcare delivery, this paper looks back at experiences with remote care during COVID-19. It investigates experiences of both patients and general practice professionals with the approachability and appropriateness of remote care and their satisfaction.
methodsIn this qualitative study, 78 patients and 18 GPs, 7 nurse practitioners and 6 mental health professionals were interviewed. Interviews were held on the phone and face-to-face in the native language of the participants.
findingsRemote care, especially telephone consultation, was generally well-approachable for patients from low-income neighborhoods. Contrarily, video calling was rarely used. This was partly because patients did not know how to use it. The majority of patients thought remote care was possible for minor ailments but would also still like to see the doctor face-to-face regularly. Patients were generally satisfied with remote care at the time, but this did not necessarily reflect their willingness to continue using it in the future. Moreover, there was lack in consensus among general practice professionals on the appropriateness of remote care for certain physical and mental complaints. Nurse practitioners and mental health professionals had a negative attitude toward remote care. In conclusion, it is important to take the opinions and barriers of patients and care providers into account and to increase patient-centered care elements and care provider satisfaction in remote care. Integrating remote care is not only important in times of crisis but also for future care that is becoming increasingly digitalized.
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.