Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40013026›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Telehealth and people with disabilities in the United Kingdom: a scoping review.

Mezhen Ko, Matthew Azzopardi, Constantinos Loizou, Abison Logeswaran, Benjamin Ng, Agata Pacho, Yu Jeat Chong

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  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

7 authors.

Mezhen KoModality LLP, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Matthew AzzopardiMoorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Constantinos LoizouModality LLP, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Abison LogeswaranMoorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Benjamin NgChrist Church, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Agata PachoDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Yu Jeat ChongModality LLP, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Telehealth, also sometimes known as telemedicine, is the use of communication technologies to deliver healthcare remotely, has become increasingly vital, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. While telehealth can improve healthcare access, it may exacerbate inequities for people with disabilities. This scoping review explores the needs, experiences, and difficulties people with disabilities face when accessing telehealth services in the United Kingdom's (UK) National Health Service (NHS). Methods: A systematic search was conducted using the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The search terms included variations of "telehealth," "disability," "impairment," "United Kingdom," and "NHS." Studies published after January 2010 were included if they addressed the experiences of people with disabilities when using telehealth. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria, and findings were synthesized into five key themes: patient and carer satisfaction, benefits of telehealth, healthcare provider perspectives, disability-specific barriers, and technological barriers. Results: The studies highlighted varied experiences across different disabilities, telehealth technologies, and medical specialties. While patients and carers generally expressed satisfaction with telehealth's convenience and accessibility, a preference for face-to-face consultations remained. Key barriers included technological challenges such as poor internet connectivity, unfamiliarity with digital tools, and device access, as well as disability-specific challenges, particularly for sensory impairments. Reported benefits of telehealth included improved access to care and flexibility for patients with disabilities. However, healthcare provider perspectives highlighted concerns about the ability to build a rapport and perform thorough assessments remotely. Conclusion: Telehealth should complement traditional care through a hybrid approach. Future efforts must focus on improving technological accessibility, training healthcare providers, and co-designing solutions with patients to promote equitable healthcare access for people with disabilities.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityPersons with DisabilitiesTelemedicineCOVID-19HumansPatient SatisfactionState MedicineUnited Kingdomdisabilityhealthcare accessibilityhealthcare equalityremote healthcaretelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID40013026
PMCPMC11860869

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.