ReviewTelemedicine reports2025
Telehealth Training and Education for Allied Health Professionals: A Scoping Review.
Review in Telemedicine reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The (dis-)advantages of telehealth consultation for allied health services: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- The impact of training and education programs for healthcare professionals on video- and text-based consultations in ensuring healthcare quality: a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Article
- Strategies to Safeguard Mental Health Among Medical and Allied Health Trainees: A Narrative Review.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Review
- Allied Health Students' Experiences of Telehealth Within Coursework and During Placement: A Survey Study.Telemedicine reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the growing adoption of telehealth in allied health disciplines, establishing clear training and education standards is crucial. This review aims to map the current training and education that has been delivered to support development of telehealth competencies in allied health professionals. This scoping review extends our previous review with an updated search. Methods: The Population Concept Context framework was used, and the following databases were searched: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science, PEDro, United Kingdom Health Forum, WHO, Health Education England, and all U.K. and Australian Allied Health Profession (AHP) professional bodies. Results: Out of 1,05,980 articles, 12 met the inclusion criteria. Training and education differed greatly, with no definite pattern in teaching approaches. Three articles used standardized questionnaires for training and education assessment, while the remaining articles used author-designed assessments. Eight articles reported that participants achieved the targeted telehealth competencies, and five reported improved attitudes toward telehealth following training and education. Articles recommended various factors that may improve telehealth training and education outcomes, which included a combination of online and face-to-face methods, interprofessional training, consolidation of their skills through supervised clinical work, and separating video and telehealth competencies. Discussion: This scoping review represents the first comprehensive exploration of telehealth training and education across allied health disciplines. While articles yielded generally positive outcomes, the absence of standardized methods prompts questions about its efficacy. Research should focus on developing evidence-based curriculums informed by pedagogic practices tailored to allied health needs.
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.