ArticleBMC primary care2025
Exploring effective patient feedback methods for eHealth in general practice.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of patient feedback is essential for identifying areas for improvement and tailoring care to the needs of patients, particularly in the context of eHealth, which has increased in adoption due to the pandemic. However, challenges persist in collecting feedback from vulnerable groups, those with severe conditions, or language barriers. Furthermore, concerns exist about the credibility and validity of the feedback received. This study aims to explore various possible forms that general practitioners (GPs) could use to collect patient feedback on eHealth applications in their daily practice.
methodsA Participatory Research (PR) was conducted involving an advisory group, patients, GPs and medical receptionists. The advisory group consisting of GPs, a board member, patient representatives and digital care manager affiliated with the primary care organisation 'Regionale Organisatie Huisartsen Amsterdam' (ROHA). The group provided input throughout the research process from the setup, data collection and interpretation to the finalization phase. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 patients, 8 GPs and 2 medical receptionists. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling. Interviews were coded using Thematic Analysis.
resultsFour themes were considered important. First, timing of feedback. Gathering instant feedback immediately after digital interactions was considered important. Secondly, the feedback procedure, whereby feedback should be given through the same communication channel as was used for the doctor-patient contact was valued. Also, participants preferred short and specific surveys, in which they can remain anonymous. Thirdly, for the feedback content some key feedback topics included general experiences, quality of care and technical aspects. The last theme was advertisement. Overall, patients do not want to burden their GP and thus tend to only give feedback if initiated by their GP. GPs themselves pointed out to have limited time for collecting feedback from patients due to their workload.
conclusionGPs can optimize the feedback collection process by selecting targeted questions and integrating them into existing eHealth applications, thereby investing minimal time from GPs and patients. It is recommended to include automatic selected questions at the end of e-consultations. This integrated approach allows efficient feedback collection without burdening GPs.
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.