ArticleBMC primary care2026
The use of online consultation tools for common mental health conditions in UK primary care: a qualitative interview study of patient and practitioner perspectives.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUK general practices are now required to make online consultation tools available during practice hours. Evidence shows patients increasingly use them to access mental health support under the ‘digital first’ approach. Whilst they may increase time-efficiency for practices, we do not know whether practitioners and patients view them as a suitable consultation mode to discuss mental health. Our aim was to explore patients’ and practitioners’ views and experiences of using online consultation tools for mental health, to inform their future use.
methodIn-depth interviews with 20 primary care practitioners and 21 patients. A topic guide was used to ensure consistency across interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. There was patient and public involvement throughout.
resultsPatients and practitioners said online consultation tools encouraged reflective thinking about mental health and symptom disclosure. However, patients’ concerns around who might read the output meant they only provided limited information. Patients also reported online tools can be a barrier to accessing care, and those with less mental health literacy may struggle to articulate their concerns. Practitioners noted that continuity of care can be reduced when using online tools, and triage is more challenging if insufficient information is provided to determine if urgent care is needed.
conclusionTo ensure that online consultation tools do not increase inequity, they should remain part of a range of options for accessing mental health support in general practice and should not be a mandatory first step to access care. Online consultation tools can provide useful information for practitioners and may be more accessible than a telephone call for patients with anxiety or depression. However, practitioners may struggle to assess patient risk using these tools, which could mean patients do not receive the care they need. Patients might need support when first using online consultation tools and advice on who will access the information provided.
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.