15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Use of telemedicine in general practice in Europe since the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review of patient and practitioner perspectives

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          General practice is generally the first point of contact for patients presenting with COVID-19. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic general practitioners (GPs) across Europe have had to adopt to using telemedicine consultations in order to minimise the number of social contacts made. GPs had to balance two needs: preventing the spread of COVID-19, while providing their patients with regular care for other health issues. The aim of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the literature examining the use of telemedicine for delivering routine general practice care since the start of the pandemic from the perspectives of patients and practitioners. The six-stage framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley, with recommendations by Levac et al was used to review the existing literature. The study selection process was conducted according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Braun and Clarke’s‘ Thematic Analysis’ approach was used to interpret data. A total of eighteen studies across nine countries were included in the review. Thirteen studies explored the practitioner perspective of the use of telemedicine in general practice since the COVID-19 pandemic, while five studies looked at the patient perspective. The types of studies included were: qualitative studies, literature reviews, a systematic review, observational studies, quantitative studies, Critical incident technique study, and surveys employing both closed and open styled questions. Key themes identified related to the patient/ practitioner experience and knowledge of using telemedicine, patient/ practitioner levels of satisfaction, GP collaboration, nature of workload, and suitability of consultations for telemedicine. The nature of general practice was radically changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Certain patient groups and areas of clinical and administrative work were identified as having performed well, if not better, by using telemedicine. Our findings suggest a level of acceptability and satisfaction of telemedicine by GPs and patients during the pandemic; however, further research is warranted in this area.

          Author summary

          Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic imposed significant restrictions on social contact. These included practices such as social distancing and cocooning for elderly people and those with various morbidities. This resulted in general practitioners (GPs) across Europe having to adopt to using telemedicine consultations to minimise the number of social contacts made. GPs had to try to achieve a balance between preventing the spread of COVID-19 and providing their patients with regular care for other health issues. In this paper we conducted a comprehensive review of the literature to examine the use of telemedicine for delivering routine general practice care since the start of the pandemic from the perspectives of patients and practitioners. Our findings suggest a level of acceptability and satisfaction of telemedicine by GPs and patients during the pandemic. However, for doctors to be prepared to make the shift to telemedicine, they require training and education on using telemedicine as well as ensuring they are equipped with the necessary digital resources to conduct remote care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

            Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Use of Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review

              Background With over 37.8 million cases and over 1 million deaths worldwide, the COVID-19 pandemic has created a societal and economic upheaval of unparalleled magnitude. A positive transformation has been brought about by innovative solutions in the health care sector that aim to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on human health. For instance, the use of telehealth has been on the rise amidst this public health emergency. Objective Given the unprecedented scale of the pandemic with no definitive endpoint, we aimed to scope the existing telehealth-related literature during a defined period of the ongoing pandemic (ie, January to June 2020). Methods Our scoping review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer Manual. We systematically searched PubMed and Embase databases with specific eligibility criteria. Data extracted from the shortlisted articles included first author and affiliation, journal title, publication type, terminologies used to describe telehealth and their accompanying definitions, health discipline or medical specialties and subspecialties wherein telehealth had been applied, the purpose of telehealth use, and the authors’ overall sentiment on telehealth use. We collated the available information and used descriptive statistics to analyze the synthesized data. Results In all, 543 articles published across 331 different journals were included in this scoping review. The Journal of Medical Internet Research and its sister journals featured the highest number of articles (25/543, 4.6%). Nearly all (533/543, 98.2%) articles were in English. The majority of the articles were opinions, commentaries, and perspectives (333/543, 61.3%). Most authors of the articles reviewed were from high-income countries (470/543, 86.6%), especially from the United States of America (237/543, 43.6%). In all, 39 different definitions were used to describe terms equivalent to telehealth. A small percentage (42/543, 7.7%) of the articles focused on the provision of COVID-19–related care. Moreover, 49.7% (270/543) of the articles primarily focused on the provision of multiple components of clinical care, and 23% (125/543) of the articles focused on various specialties and subspecialties of internal medicine. For a vast majority (461/543, 84.9%) of the articles, the authors expressed a celebratory sentiment about the use of telehealth. Conclusions This review identified considerable emerging literature on telehealth during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic, albeit mostly from high-income countries. There is compelling evidence to suggest that telehealth may have a significant effect on advancing health care in the future. However, the feasibility and application of telehealth in resource-limited settings and low- and middle-income countries must be established to avail its potential and transform health care for the world’s population. Given the rapidity with which telehealth is advancing, a global consensus on definitions, boundaries, protocols, monitoring, evaluation, and data privacy is urgently needed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLOS Digit Health
                PLOS Digit Health
                plos
                PLOS Digital Health
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                2767-3170
                14 February 2024
                February 2024
                : 3
                : 2
                : e0000427
                Affiliations
                [1 ] UCD School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland
                [2 ] Irish College of General Practitioners, Dublin, Ireland
                [3 ] Nobber Health Centre, Nobber, Ireland
                [4 ] Ayrfield Medical Practice, Kilkenny, Ireland
                University of Leeds, UNITED KINGDOM
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4898-3459
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5084-8507
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3445-2366
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8491-9596
                Article
                PDIG-D-22-00363
                10.1371/journal.pdig.0000427
                10866456
                38354211
                d1e892cd-9b2d-4b04-9fdf-3a6ff91313c3
                © 2024 Walley et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 19 January 2023
                : 6 December 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 1, Pages: 13
                Funding
                Funded by: Ireland East Hospital Group, UCD College of Health & Agricultural Sciences and UCD School of Medicine
                Award Recipient :
                We are grateful to the Ireland East Hospital Group, UCD College of Health & Agricultural Sciences and UCD School of Medicine who funded the salaries of authors GM and JB for the duration of their work on the study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Medical Services
                Telemedicine
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Covid 19
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Pandemics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Patients
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Policy
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Database and Informatics Methods
                Database Searching
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Humanities
                Medical Journals
                General Medical Journals
                People and Places
                Geographical Locations
                Europe
                Custom metadata
                This study is a scoping review of the literature on our study topic. As such, data for this study is the contents of the published articles included in this review. The list of articles reviewed in this manuscript can be accessed via Table 1 and the reference list. Table 1 also outlines specific details of the data that was extracted from the included articles for the purpose of this study.
                COVID-19

                Comments

                Comment on this article