Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39020223›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2024

Primary Care Telemedicine and Care Continuity: Implications for Timeliness and Short-term Follow-up Healthcare.

Ilana Graetz, Jie Huang, Anjali Gopalan, Emilie Muelly, Andrea Millman, Mary E Reed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Continuity of Care as Diagnostic Infrastructure.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
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

6 authors.

Ilana GraetzDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA. ilana.graetz@emory.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3664-5815
Jie HuangKaiser Permanente Northern California, Division of Research, Pleasanton, CA, USA.
Anjali GopalanKaiser Permanente Northern California, Division of Research, Pleasanton, CA, USA.
Emilie MuellyThe Permanente Medical Group, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Andrea MillmanKaiser Permanente Northern California, Division of Research, Pleasanton, CA, USA.
Mary E ReedKaiser Permanente Northern California, Division of Research, Pleasanton, CA, USA.

Funding

Translational Research Core - Health Engagement & Action Translational (HEAT)P30DK092924 · NIDDK · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI Alyce Sophia Adams, HILARY Kessler SELIGMAN · 2011 to 2026
$9.2M
Patient choice of telemedicine encountersR01HS025189 · AHRQ · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI REED, MARY · 2018 to 2022
$1.9M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS025189AHRQ HHS R01HS25189NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092924
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effectiveness of telemedicine by a patient's own primary care provider (PCP) versus another available PCP is understudied.

objectiveExamine the association between primary care visit modality with timeliness and follow-up in-person healthcare, including variation by visits with the patient's own PCP versus another PCP. DESIGN AND

participantsCohort study including primary care visits in a large, integrated delivery system in 2022. MEASURES: Outcomes included timeliness (visit completed within 7 days of scheduling) and in-person follow-up (PCP visits, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations) within 7 days of the index PCP visit. Logistic regression measured the association between visit modality (in-person, video, and audio-only telemedicine) with the patient's own PCP or another PCP and outcomes, adjusting for characteristics. KEY

resultsAmong 4,817,317 primary care visits, 59% were in-person, 27% audio-only, and 14% video telemedicine. Most (71.3%) were with the patient's own PCP. Telemedicine visits were timelier, with modality having a larger association for visits with patient's own PCP versus another PCP (P < 0.001). For visits with patient's own PCPs, return office visit rates were 1.2% for in-person, 5.3% for video, and 6.1% for audio-only. For another PCP, rates were 2.2% for in-person, 7.3% for video, and 8.1% for audio. Follow-up ED visits ranged from 1.4% (in-person) to 1.6% (audio-only) with own PCP, compared to 1.9% (in-person) to 2.3% (audio-only) with another PCP. Differences in return office and ED visits between in-person and telemedicine were larger for visits with another PCP compared to their own PCP (P < 0.001). Follow-up hospitalizations were rare, ranging from 0.19% (in-person with own PCP) to 0.32% (video with another PCP).

conclusionDifferences in return office and ED visits between in-person and telemedicine were larger when patients saw a less familiar PCP compared to their own PCP, reinforcing the importance of care continuity.

Indexed as

Continuity of Patient CarePrimary Health CareTelemedicineAdolescentAdultAgedCohort StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedOffice VisitsTime FactorsYoung Adultcare continuityhealthcare accessprimary caretelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID39020223
PMCPMC11436533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.