Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40146204›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

The Dynamics of Doctor-Patient Communication During Remote Consultations: Qualitative Study Among Norwegian Contract General Practitioners.

Børge Lønnebakke Norberg, Bjarne Austad, Eli Kristiansen, Paolo Zanaboni, Linn Okkenhaug Getz

Abstract read
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 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
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

5 authors.

Børge Lønnebakke NorbergGeneral Practice Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-2642-9310
Bjarne AustadGeneral Practice Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-1638-6879
Eli KristiansenNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-3170-1745
Paolo ZanaboniNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-5469-092X
Linn Okkenhaug GetzGeneral Practice Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-0405-7752

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient consultations in general practice are undergoing a digital transformation, embracing diverse modalities such as video, text-based, and telephone consultations. The quality of communication in medical consultations is pivotal for successful outcomes, necessitating a comprehensive assessment of the impact of this transformation on doctor-patient communication and interaction.

objectiveThis study aims to explore general practitioners' (GPs') perspectives on how the communication between Norwegian contract GPs and patients has been affected by the large-scale implementation of remote consultations following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsFive focus groups, comprising 18 purposefully recruited GPs from diverse settings and geographical regions in Norway, were carried out in 2022. We applied thematic analysis guided by the framework proposed by Braun and Clarke.

resultsSix themes resulted from the analysis. First, suitability regarding remote communication is context-dependent: knowing the characteristics of the patient as a person and the clinical relationship is more important than the reason for contact or type of health problem-even more so than during ordinary physical consultations. Second, remote consultations favor a demarcated communication style, "keeping things simple-the one-problem approach," which can increase work effectiveness. Third, a downside of such effective minimalism is that the uncritical use of remote consultations may undermine the quality of care. Communication becomes too transactional, limiting the chances of addressing more implicit and complex issues, with the risk of missing vital information. Fourth, remote modalities can help engage hesitant and vulnerable patients. Fifth, GPs make communicative trade-offs in the name of continuity to be able to maintain relationships with patients they see as vulnerable or fugitive. Finally, there are advantages and dilemmas stemming from text-based consultations. Although they offer benefits such as multimedia-enabled patient expression and sharing of digital information, some concerns include the risk of information loss through triage errors, managing informal language, and ending chat-like interactions between patients and doctors.

conclusionsThe implementation of remote consultations has many effects on clinical interaction and communication. Although these modalities can enhance efficiency, there is a discernible risk of compromised retrieval of essential information and unvoiced problems, potentially resulting in unintended consequences. The preservation of continuity of care emerges as a pivotal strategy to mitigate some of these challenges.

Indexed as

CommunicationGeneral PractitionersPhysician-Patient RelationsRemote ConsultationAdultCOVID-19FemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayQualitative ResearchSARS-CoV-2communicationdigital consultationsdigital healtheHealthfamily medicinefocus groupsgeneral practicegeneral practitionerpatient-physicianqualitative analysisrelationshipremote consultationssafetytelehealthtelemedicinethematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID40146204
PMCPMC11986389

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.