Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39020277›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2024

Telemedicine in primary care of older adults: a qualitative study.

Vladimir Khanassov, Marwa Ilali, Ana Saavedra Ruiz, Laura Rojas-Rozo, Rosa Sourial

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Vladimir KhanassovDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Ch. de la Côte des Neiges, Montréal, QC, H3S 1Z1, Canada. vladimir.khanassov@mcgill.ca.
Marwa IlaliDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Ch. de la Côte des Neiges, Montréal, QC, H3S 1Z1, Canada.
Ana Saavedra RuizDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Ch. de la Côte des Neiges, Montréal, QC, H3S 1Z1, Canada.
Laura Rojas-RozoDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Ch. de la Côte des Neiges, Montréal, QC, H3S 1Z1, Canada.
Rosa SourialDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Ch. de la Côte des Neiges, Montréal, QC, H3S 1Z1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic changed the healthcare system, leading to the rapid evolution and implementation of telemedicine (TM). TM has the potential to improve the quality of primary health care and increase accessibility for the population. However, its use may represent challenges for older people, as they may have distinct needs from the general population due to age-related changes in perceptual, motor, and cognitive capacities. We, thus, aimed to identify potential facilitators and barriers to TM use in primary care for older adults and develop recommendations accordingly.

methodsWe conducted a qualitative study to explore the challenges associated with TM use among older adults and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in primary care practice. Interviews were conducted with 29 older adults, and three focus groups involving HCPs from four McGill family medicine sites were organized. Employing a hybrid codebook thematic analysis, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we identified facilitators and barriers affecting the optimal use of TM by older adults and HCPs. We synthesized the results from semi-structured interviews and focus groups. These findings were then presented during a deliberative dialogue with eight participants, including family physicians, nurses, a social worker, and a government-level TM expert, to validate our results. The purpose was to gather feedback, identify and refine actionable recommendations. Subsequently, we utilized a thematic analysis using the same codebook to synthesize findings from the deliberative dialogue.

resultsParticipants agreed that TM contributed to maintaining the continuity of care and was particularly convenient when there was an existing or established patient-physician relationship or for addressing minor health issues. TM was found to be beneficial for people with limited mobility, reducing their exposure to potentially high-risk environments. However, participants expressed concerns about the lack of visual contact, causing essential details to be overlooked. Additionally, issues related to miscommunication due to language or hearing barriers were identified. HCPs perceived that most older adults did not consider phone consultations a medical act. Participants were open to a hybrid approach, combining in-person consultations and TM, based on their specific health conditions. Building upon these results, we formulated seven key recommendations.

conclusionsBoth older adults and HCPs consider TM a good alternative for accessing healthcare services. To improve the effective use of TM, it's crucial to advocate for a hybrid approach that integrates both in-person and virtual methods. This approach should actively encourage and support individuals in becoming familiar with technological tools.

Indexed as

COVID-19Focus GroupsPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchTelemedicineAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMalePandemicsSARS-CoV-2Family physiciansOlder adultsPrimary careTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID39020277
PMCPMC11253566

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.