ArticleBMJ open2025
Benefits and challenges of asynchronous telemedicine in obtaining a second opinion: a qualitative interview study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAsynchronous telemedicine-based second opinions, using a purely document-based and written procedure, offer an opportunity to support patients in their medical decision-making, particularly those who cannot secure a timely face-to-face appointment nearby. The aim of the study is to investigate the benefits and challenges of asynchronous telemedicine in obtaining a second opinion and clarify for whom and under what conditions it is suitable.
designWe conducted a qualitative interview study as part of a larger mixed-methods study. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis.
settingGermany.
participantsThe study involved 40 patients (20 women and 20 men) who sought an asynchronous telemedicine-based second opinion via an online platform, predominantly for orthopaedic issues.
resultsAsynchronous telemedicine-based second opinions offer advantages such as access to distant specialists, the ability to consult from home without waiting times, timeliness and a detailed, fact-based report. However, the absence of face-to-face contact presents challenges: it can feel impersonal, technical problems may arise, it can be difficult to articulate symptoms and medical history in writing, and spontaneous interaction or correction is limited.
conclusionsUnder certain conditions, telemedicine-based second opinions can be individualised without face-to-face interaction. Key factors for success include a clear medical question, a well-organised process with good customer support, comprehensive and individualised information, and patient readiness (technical skills, internet access and the ability to articulate symptoms in writing). Major challenges for the German healthcare system include overcoming a potential digital divide as certain patient groups may not be reached by digital services.
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.