Cited by 26Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationAsthma and respiratory diseasesPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Telephone or surgery asthma reviews? Preferences of participants in a primary care randomised controlled trial

Open access
Pinnock, Hilary, Madden, Victoria, Snellgrove, Caroline, Sheikh, Aziz·2005·Primary Care Respiratory Journal

Abstract

263 participants completing a randomised controlled trial comparing telephone vs. face-to-face asthma consultations were asked about preferences for future reviews. Qualitative analysis of data from 209 respondents identified divergent views. Clear opinions were expressed about the respective roles of the two modes of consulting; telephone consultations were considered convenient for reviewing 'well controlled' asthma, whereas face-to-face consultations were perceived as allowing in-depth assessment of problems in those with more symptomatic asthma. Practices may consider offering patients the choice of a telephone or face-to-face review.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pcrj.2004.10.002

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In that Scotland analysis, total respiratory costs of providing 101 telephone reviews were similar to those for 68 in-person reviews.

    “Total respiratory costs of providing 101 telephone reviews were similar to those for 68 in-person reviews”
  • In a 2005 Scotland cost-effectiveness analysis based on an RCT, telephone consultations were significantly shorter compared with surgery (average of 11.19 min versus 21.87 min).

    “Telephone consultations were significantly shorter compared with surgery (average of 11.19 min versus 21.87 min).”
  • In that Scotland analysis, nurse-led telephone consultations can cost-effectively increase the proportion of patients reviewed compared with face-to-face consultations (74% versus 48%) at an average saving of €3.92 per consultation.

    “Therefore, ''nurse-led telephone consultations can cost-effectively increase the proportion of patients reviewed when compared with face-toface consultations (74% versus 48%) at an average saving of e 3.92 per consultation achieved.''”
  • In that Scotland analysis, the average cost per consultation was lower in the telephone group compared with in-person (€7.19 vs. €11.11).

    “the average cost per consultation was lower in the telephone group compared with in-person (e7.19 vs. e11.11).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pinnock, H., Madden, V., Snellgrove, C., & Sheikh, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Whitstable and Tankerton Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Pinnock, Hilary
Venue
Primary Care Respiratory Journal
Published
2005-02-01
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
42-46
ISSN
  • 1471-4418 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-1534
OpenAlex
W1972345670
Cited by
26
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Primary Care Respiratory Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • AstraZeneca
  • British Lung Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
asthma reviews, telephone consultation, face-to-face consultation, patient preferences, asthma management, primary care, patient choice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review