Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39135150›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2024

eVisits to primary care and subsequent health care contacts: a register-based study.

Hanna Glock, Ulf Jakobsson, Beata Borgström Bolmsjö, Veronica Milos Nymberg, Moa Wolff, Susanna Calling

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Hanna GlockCenter for Primary Health Care Research, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Box 50332, Malmö, 202 13, Sweden. hanna.glock@med.lu.se.
Ulf JakobssonCenter for Primary Health Care Research, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Box 50332, Malmö, 202 13, Sweden.
Beata Borgström BolmsjöCenter for Primary Health Care Research, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Box 50332, Malmö, 202 13, Sweden.
Veronica Milos NymbergCenter for Primary Health Care Research, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Box 50332, Malmö, 202 13, Sweden.
Moa WolffCenter for Primary Health Care Research, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Box 50332, Malmö, 202 13, Sweden.
Susanna CallingCenter for Primary Health Care Research, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Box 50332, Malmö, 202 13, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence concerning health care use related to virtual visits is conflicting. More research has been called for regarding the effectiveness of text-based virtual visits (eVisits). Therefore, we investigated patient characteristics, diagnoses, and subsequent health care contacts after eVisits to primary care.

methodsWe conducted a register-based cohort study of eVisits to an all-virtual public primary care unit in Sweden and subsequent health care contacts within 14 days. Data for 2021 were acquired from the regional health care databases. Diagnoses were sorted into relevant diagnostic groups, such as skin diagnoses and respiratory tract diagnoses. Multiple logistic regression was performed with subsequent health care contact as the outcome variable and diagnostic group for the eVisit as the predictor variable. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, and socioeconomic index.

resultsThere were 5817 eVisits to a nurse and 4267 eVisits to a general practitioner (N = 10 084). Most patients were 20 to 39 years of age (41.8%). Skin diagnoses were most frequent (47.3%), followed by respiratory tract diagnoses (19.9%). Approximately one-fourth (25.8%) of the patients who completed an eVisit with a nurse or a general practitioner had a subsequent face-to-face visit within 14 days, mostly in primary care. Subsequent contacts were more frequent after an eVisit to a nurse than to a general practitioner. After an eVisit to a general practitioner, patients with infections (especially respiratory tract but also urinary tract) and unspecified diagnoses (especially skin-related) were more likely to require further health care contact compared to a group with various other diagnoses.

conclusionseVisits to an all-virtual primary care unit may be appropriate for uncomplicated medical complaints. Nonetheless, the effectiveness of eVisits in terms of substitution of physical visits, and resource utilization in relation to the more complex care needs of a primary care population, should be further studied.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareRegistriesAdolescentAdultAgedChildChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMiddle AgedRespiratory Tract DiseasesSkin DiseasesAccess to primary careDigital healthe-visitGeneral practiceHealth care usePrimary health careRemote consultationTelemedicineVirtual visit

Identifiers

PMID39135150
PMCPMC11318178

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.