ArticleFamily practice2025
Perceptions, facilitators and barriers of digital interdisciplinary consultation: a qualitative study.
Article in Family practice, 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
Abstract
backgroundThe demand for care is increasing in volume and complexity. Digital interdisciplinary consultation (DIDC) has the potential to support general practitioners (GPs) with specialist knowledge and prevent unnecessary referrals. Successful DIDC requires collaboration between stakeholders with potentially different goals, barriers and motivations. Little is known about this broader context of DIDC.
aimTo identify stakeholders' perceptions about DIDC including barriers and facilitators to its use. DESIGN AND
settingSemistructured interviews with seven stakeholder groups in the Netherlands.
methodWe used purposive sampling to attain various stakeholders. The semistructured online or telephone interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically.
resultsWe interviewed 46 stakeholders (12 GPs, 10 medical specialists, 11 patients, 3 health insurance representatives, 6 platform developers, 3 primary-secondary care coordinators (PSCCs), and 1 chief medical information officer). We identified six themes: effectiveness, implementation requirements, evaluation of DIDC use, impact on networked care, acceptance by patients and future use of DIDC. Overall, stakeholders were positive about DIDC. The expected impact of DIDC on the accessibility and affordability of healthcare varied from modest to high. Agreements on collaboration and funding, and the need for user-friendly digital platforms were identified as the most important requirements for successful implementation. Physicians particularly appreciated the asynchronous nature of DIDC and the time saved. Patients appreciated receiving timely care, free from a deductible excess and avoiding unnecessary hospital visits.
conclusionThis study shows that all stakeholders were overall positive about DIDC. Agreements on organization, collaboration, financing, and platform design are essential.
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.