ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2026
Perceptions and use of publicly funded episodic virtual care: Cross-sectional survey data from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore public perceptions of episodic virtual care (EVC) and to identify patient characteristics associated with use of EVC services.
designCross-sectional study.
settingNew Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
participantsIndividuals 18 years or older residing in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
main outcome measuresEVC perception was assessed by asking whether virtual visits with someone other than a personal family physician or nurse practitioner can meet the day-to-day health needs of patients (emergencies excepted). Usage was determined by asking whether EVC services were used in the past 12 months. Multivariable ordered and binary logistic regression models explored associations between patient characteristics, EVC perception, and EVC use. Agreement with a range of statements reflecting perception of EVC services was described.
resultsOf the 3882 respondents, 56.3% agreed or strongly agreed that EVC could meet their day-to-day health needs, and 46.7% of a representative population panel (n=895) reported using EVC services in the past 12 months. EVC meeting the day-to-day needs of patients was associated with better comfort with technology (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26 to 2.93), trust in the health care system (AOR=4.15, 95% CI 2.40 to 7.18), basic or routine medical needs (AOR=1.82, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.79), and no disability (AOR=1.45, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.11). EVC use was strongly associated with not having a regular family physician or nurse practitioner (AOR=3.41, 95% CI 1.56 to 7.46), and was negatively associated with being an older adult (45 to 54 years: AOR=0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.85; 55 to 64 years: AOR=0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.77) and a rural resident (AOR=0.29, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.59). More than 80% of respondents reported that EVC is suitable or completely suitable for minor short-term health concerns (eg, common cold), prescription renewals, and referrals, whereas less than 50% found it suitable or completely suitable for ongoing health conditions.
conclusionFindings reflect perceptions that EVC can play a role in meeting primary care needs, particularly among those with less complex medical needs, but current use is most strongly associated with not having a regular primary care clinician.
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.