ReviewSexually transmitted infections2025
What guidance exists to support remote consultations in sexual and reproductive health services? A review of the policy and practice literature.
Review in Sexually transmitted infections, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe use of remote consultations, such as appointments via telephone, video, online or text in sexual and reproductive health services (SRHS) across the UK, has expanded in recent years. This review synthesises grey literature from different organisations to identify current practice and guidance for remote consultations.
methodsWe searched for a range of grey literature document types, including unpublished reports, evaluations, published standards, guidance, blogs and opinion pieces. The searches were conducted between March 2023 and July 2024 using Google, as well as the Healthcare Management Information Consortium database and preidentified organisational websites (eg, the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare). Data extracted included terminology, challenges to implementation and linked guidance and equity considerations in the use of remote consultations in SRHS. Narrative synthesis was used to analyse findings.
resultsThe available guidance on implementing and delivering remote SRHS is modest in scope and volume and draws on a sparse evidence base. Existing guidance recommends the use of safeguarding assessments and checklists to support pathways from remote into in-person care. While remote consultations were seen as potentially enhancing equity, challenges included differences in technology access and digital literacy. Equity-related guidance included prioritising disadvantaged groups for in-person appointments and flexible care pathways. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsThe grey literature highlights the potential of remote SRHS to improve access and equity while also identifying risks in implementation and outcomes. There is an ongoing requirement for detailed, evidence-informed guidance that incorporates service user perspectives.
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.