Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40053751›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Use of Remote Assessment Tools to Substitute Routine Outpatient Care: Scoping Review.

Jayne Barclay, Clair Sullivan, Michael Beckmann, Graeme Mattison, Rebecca Runciman, Elizabeth Martin

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Jayne Barclay *School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6316-9108
Clair Sullivan *Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2475-9989
Michael Beckmann *School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7319-6938
Graeme MattisonQLD Digital Health Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8020-3179
Rebecca RuncimanMater Misericordiae Ltd, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4298-2354
Elizabeth Martin *School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0252-8303

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing global demand for health care, driven by demographic shifts, the rise of personalized medicine, and technological innovations necessitate novel approaches to health care delivery. Digital remote assessment tools have emerged as a promising solution, enabling hybrid care models that combine traditional and remote patient management. These tools support the quadruple aim of health care by enhancing the monitoring and evaluation of patient-reported data, thereby improving patient care, boosting operational efficiency, reducing costs, and improving the experience of patients and clinicians. This review seeks to understand how remote assessment tools are used for routine consultation substitution in adult tertiary care centers.

objectiveThis scoping review aims to evaluate the implementation and health outcomes of digital remote assessment tools used for routine consultation substitutions in adult tertiary care centers. The objectives include assessing the extent of use, types, and effectiveness of these tools in substituting conventional outpatient care.

methodsA comprehensive scoping review was conducted, adhering to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. The review focused on studies that used internet-dependent remote assessment technologies for patient data transfer in tertiary care settings. A detailed search strategy was used across multiple databases, with studies selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction and analysis were performed by independent reviewers, with a focus on the functionalities of the tools and their alignment with the Quadruple Aim of Healthcare.

resultsThe review included 12 studies, highlighting a growing interest in remote assessment technologies across diverse clinical settings. The interventions varied in length, from 4 weeks to 12 months, and demonstrated a range of functionalities, including symptom monitoring and postsurgical follow-ups. The use of these tools was associated with improved clinical outcomes, such as timely intervention for clinical deterioration and enhanced clinical protocol adherence. Additionally, a small number of studies identified potential cost savings in terms of reduced unplanned health care contacts and optimized clinical resource use. Patient and clinician experiences were generally positive, with high adherence to remote assessments and an appreciation for the personalized and timely care facilitated by these technologies. Barriers included high initial setup costs for digital technologies, leading to an inflated cost per patient in small sample studies.

conclusionsDigital remote assessment tools offer significant potential to enhance health care delivery by improving health outcomes, reducing costs, and enriching patient and clinician experiences. Their flexibility and adaptability make them suitable for various clinical contexts, supporting the personalization of care and operational efficiency. While digital remote assessment tools offer significant potential, careful consideration of implementation strategies, equity, cost, and clinician and patient experiences is crucial for successful clinical integration.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareRemote ConsultationHumansTelemedicineapplicationshealth care cost reductionhybrid care modelsmHealthpatient-reported outcome measuresremote assessmentremote patient monitoringself-reportedtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID40053751
PMCPMC11920651

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.