Cited by 26Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareDental Research and COVID-19

Patient-reported experiences and outcomes of virtual care during COVID-19: a systematic review

Open access

Abstract

Introduction: The onset of COVID-19 has caused an international upheaval of traditional in-person approaches to care delivery. Rapid system-level transitions to virtual care provision restrict the ability of healthcare professionals to evaluate care quality from the patient's perspective. This poses challenges to ensuring that patient-centered care is upheld within virtual environments. To address this, the study’s objective was to review how virtual care has impacted patient experiences and outcomes during COVID-19, through the use of patient-reported experience and outcome measures (PREMs and PROMs), respectively. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines to evaluate patient responsiveness to virtual care during COVID-19. Using an exhaustive search strategy, relevant peer-reviewed articles published between January 2020 and 2022 were pulled from MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsychInfo databases. Study quality was independently assessed by two reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A patient partner was consulted throughout the study to provide feedback and co-conduct the review. Results: After removing duplicates, 6048 articles underwent title and abstract review, from which 644 studies were included in the full-text review stage. Following this, 102 articles were included in the study. Studies were published in 20 different countries, were predominantly cross-sectional, and reported on the delivery of virtual care in specialized adult outpatient settings. This review identified 29 validated PREMs and 43 PROMs. Several advantages to virtual care were identified, with patients citing greater convenience, (such as saving travel time and cost, less waiting experienced to see care providers) and increased protection from viral spread. Some studies also reported challenges patients and caregivers faced with virtual care, including feeling rushed during the virtual care appointment, lack of physical contact or examination presenting barriers, difficulty with communicating symptoms, and technology issues. Conclusion: This review provides supportive evidence of virtual care experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic from patient and caregiver perspectives. This research provides a comprehensive overview of what patient-reported measures can be used to record virtual care quality amid and following the pandemic. Further research into healthcare professionals’ perspectives would offer a supportive lens toward a strong person-centered healthcare system.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s41687-023-00659-8

Cites

125 of 125 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Promoting value-based payment models can incentivize providers to deliver high-quality, cost-effective care, prioritizing patients with multiple chronic conditions.

    “promoting value-based payment models can incentivize providers to deliver high-quality, cost-effective care, prioritizing patients with multiple chronic conditions.35,36”

    From Program cost and return on investment analysis of remote patient monitoring for hypertension management in the cardiology department of a large healthcare system (2026) · cites this paper as [36]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says patient-reported measures can inform decisions for value-based healthcare, but does not discuss payment models. The Discussion (page unavailable) addresses virtual-care quality, not provider incentives, cost-effectiveness, or prioritization of patients with multiple chronic conditions. Searches for payment incentives and those patient groups found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bajgain, B., Rabi, S., Ahmed, S., Kiryanova, V., Fairie, P., & Santana, M. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Alberta SPOR SUPPORT Unit (CA)
Corresponding author
Ahmed, Sadia
Venue
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Published
2023-12-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
126-126
ISSN
2509-8020 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4389223430
Cited by
26
References
125
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Libraries and Cultural Resources (University of Calgary) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
AbSPORU Patient Engagement Team
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › General Dentistry › Dental Research and COVID-19
Keywords
virtual care, telemedicine, COVID-19 pandemic, patient-reported experience measures, patient-reported outcome measures, patient experience, patient-centered care, caregiver experiences, technology barriers, quality of care
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, COVID-19, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Health Personnel, Humans, Pandemics

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