SynthesisBMC primary care2025
Patients' perspective about synchronous teleconsultation with a general practitioner: a mixed-method systematic literature review.
Synthesis in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond technology: Understanding digital healthcare through patient experience and sociotechnical resilience in Northern Ghana.Dialogues in health · 2026Article
- Contacts with Patients in Croatian Family Medicine Practices-What Has Changed from 2019 to 2025?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Acceptability of Patient Portals and Phone Consultations in Hybrid Primary Care: A Slovenian Multi-Centre Pilot Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSynchronous teleconsultations using video or phone have become an increasingly popular method for delivering healthcare, especially in primary care. This modality enhances access to care, particularly for individuals in remote or underserved areas, and was especially significant during disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these benefits, patient perspectives on teleconsultations with general practitioners (GPs) remain underexplored. Factors such as consultation type, convenience, and technology influence patient satisfaction and acceptance, but concerns persist about the effectiveness of remote consultations for complex cases. This systematic review explores patients' use, attitudes, experiences, satisfaction, and preferences regarding synchronous teleconsultations with GPs, aiming to identify factors influencing the choice of teleconsultation over face-to-face consultations.
methodsThe review included 46 studies published until March 2023, sourced from PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library, following PRISMA guidelines. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies were analyzed, representing diverse contexts.
resultsFindings reveal that patient satisfaction with teleconsultation is influenced by consultation purpose, convenience, technological capabilities, and continuity of care. Video consultations are preferred over phone consultations, particularly for follow-ups and routine issues. Teleconsultation is seen as less effective for complex consultations requiring physical exams. Patient characteristics, including age, socioeconomic status, and technology familiarity, impact acceptance. Privacy concerns, data security, and diagnostic accuracy remain significant barriers. Continuity of care is better maintained when teleconsultation involves established patient-GP relationships.
conclusionsThe review emphasizes the need for hybrid care models and policies aligned with patient preferences, focusing on accessibility, technology, and privacy safeguards. Future research should address barriers for vulnerable populations and equitable access.
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.