Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39083789›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Training Service Users in the Use of Telehealth: Scoping Review.

Emer Galvin, Shane Desselle, Blánaid Gavin, Fiona McNicholas, Shane Cullinan, John Hayden

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Training Service Users in the Use of Telehealth: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    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

6 authors.

Emer GalvinSchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-8047-5599
Shane DesselleTouro University California, California, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5987-1391
Blánaid GavinSchool of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-5338-906X
Fiona McNicholasSchool of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-9428-6908
Shane CullinanSchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-0648-1477
John HaydenSchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-3344-6888

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of telehealth has rapidly increased, yet some populations may be disproportionally excluded from accessing and using this modality of care. Training service users in telehealth may increase accessibility for certain groups. The extent and nature of these training activities have not been explored.

objectiveThe objective of this scoping review is to identify and describe activities for training service users in the use of telehealth.

methodsFive databases (MEDLINE [via PubMed], Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) were searched in June 2023. Studies that described activities to train service users in the use of synchronous telehealth consultations were eligible for inclusion. Studies that focused on health care professional education were excluded. Papers were limited to those published in the English language. The review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews and was reported in line with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Titles and abstracts were screened by 1 reviewer (EG). Full texts were screened by 2 reviewers (EG and JH or SC). Data extraction was guided by the research question.

resultsThe search identified 8087 unique publications. In total, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. Telehealth training was commonly described as once-off preparatory phone calls to service users before a telehealth visit, facilitated primarily by student volunteers, and accompanied by written instructions. The training content included guidance on how to download and install software, troubleshoot technical issues, and adjust device settings. Older adults were the most common target population for the training. All but 1 of the studies were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, training was feasible and well-received by service users, and studies mostly reported increased rates of video visits following training. There was limited and mixed evidence that training improved participants' competency with telehealth.

conclusionsThe review mapped the literature on training activities for service users in telehealth. The common features of telehealth training for service users included once-off preparatory phone calls on the technical elements of telehealth, targeted at older adults. Key issues for consideration include the need for co-designed training and improving the broader digital skills of service users. There is a need for further studies to evaluate the outcomes of telehealth training activities in geographically diverse areas.

Indexed as

TelemedicineAdultAgedCOVID-19Humanscaregivercaregiversconsultationconsultationsdata extractiondigital dividedigital literacyeducationgeriatricgeriatricsgerontologyhealth care professionalhealth care professionalsmodality of careolder adultolder adultsphonephonesPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping ReviewsPRISMA-ScRreviewscoping reviewtelehealthtelemonitoringtrainingtraining serviceuserusersvideo consultations

Identifiers

PMID39083789
PMCPMC11325118

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.