Cited by 164Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationTechnology Use by Older AdultsHealthcare Systems and Technology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet; none of the 158 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Spread, Scale-up, and Sustainability of Video Consulting in Health Care: Systematic Review and Synthesis Guided by the NASSS Framework

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: COVID-19 has thrust video consulting into the limelight, as health care practitioners worldwide shift to delivering care remotely. Evidence suggests that video consulting is acceptable, safe, and effective in selected conditions and settings. However, research to date has mostly focused on initial adoption, with limited consideration of how video consulting can be mainstreamed and sustained. Objective: This study sought to do the following: (1) review and synthesize reported opportunities, challenges, and lessons learned in the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of video consultations, and (2) identify transferable insights that can inform policy and practice. Methods: We identified papers through systematic searches in PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Included articles reported on synchronous, video-based consultations that had spread to more than one setting beyond an initial pilot or feasibility stage, and were published since 2010. We used the Nonadoption, Abandonment, and challenges to the Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework to synthesize findings relating to 7 domains: an understanding of the health condition(s) for which video consultations were being used, the material properties of the technological platform and relevant peripherals, the value proposition for patients and developers, the role of the adopter system, organizational factors, wider macro-level considerations, and emergence over time. Results: We identified 13 papers describing 10 different video consultation services in 6 regions, covering the following: (1) video-to-home services, connecting providers directly to the patient; (2) hub-and-spoke models, connecting a provider at a central hub to a patient at a rural center; and (3) large-scale top-down evaluations scaled up or spread across a national health administration. Services covered rehabilitation, geriatrics, cancer surgery, diabetes, and mental health, as well as general specialist care and primary care. Potential enablers of spread and scale-up included embedded leadership and the presence of a telehealth champion, appropriate reimbursement mechanisms, user-friendly technology, pre-existing staff relationships, and adaptation (of technology and services) over time. Challenges tended to be related to service development, such as the absence of a long-term strategic plan, resistance to change, cost and reimbursement issues, and the technical experience of staff. There was limited articulation of the challenges to scale-up and spread of video consultations. This was combined with a lack of theorization, with papers tending to view spread and scale-up as the sum of multiple technical implementations, rather than theorizing the distinct processes required to achieve widespread adoption. Conclusions: There remains a significant lack of evidence that can support the spread and scale-up of video consulting. Given the recent pace of change due to COVID-19, a more definitive evidence base is urgently needed to support global efforts and match enthusiasm for extending use.

Checked 2026-10-06 · 2 references not checked yet

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review synthesized 13 papers on video consultation services that had spread beyond initial pilot or feasibility stages, using the NASSS framework to examine scale-up, spread, and sustainability. It found limited evidence and theorization for widespread adoption, with enablers such as telehealth champions and reimbursement but persistent challenges in technical support, workflows, funding, and training.

Key findings

  • The review identified 13 papers describing 10 different video consultation services in 6 regions, covering video-to-home, hub-and-spoke, and large-scale top-down models across rehabilitation, geriatrics, cancer surgery, diabetes, mental health, general specialist care, and primary care.
  • Across the 13 articles, 38 opportunities and 47 unique challenges were reported. The most common opportunities were clinical and/or nonclinical telehealth champions or coordinators (n=8), provider acceptance (n=4), adequate funding (n=4), strong interorganizational communications (n=4), and absence of billing or licensure restrictions (n=3). The most common challenges were lack of technical telehealth-specific support for clinical staff (n=6), need for redevelopment of workflows and organizational routines (n=6), financial pressures (n=5), and lack of training (n=5).
  • Potential enablers of spread and scale-up included embedded leadership and a telehealth champion, appropriate reimbursement mechanisms, user-friendly technology, pre-existing staff relationships, and adaptation over time; challenges included absence of a long-term strategic plan, resistance to change, cost and reimbursement issues, and technical experience of staff.
  • There was limited articulation and theorization of scale-up and spread: papers tended to view spread and scale-up as the sum of multiple technical implementations rather than distinct social, interorganizational, and policy-related processes. Of the articles, 10 (77%) reported both challenges and opportunities, 2 (15%) reported challenges exclusively, and 1 (8%) focused more on opportunities.

Methods

  • Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, and Web of Science in December 2018, with an update in March 2020. Included articles were peer-reviewed, published since 2010, and reported on synchronous, video-based consultations that had scaled or spread to more than one setting beyond an initial pilot or feasibility stage.
  • Initial searches identified 4484 unique articles, with 193 articles for full-text screening and 12 initially included; the updated search returned 185 new articles, of which 5 were full-text screened and 1 new relevant article was identified, bringing the total to 13.
  • Data were extracted into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, analyzed descriptively with content analysis and frequency distributions, then synthesized inductively and deductively using the 7 domains of the NASSS framework. Quality was appraised with CASP and MMAT checklists, but articles were not excluded on quality grounds.

Limitations

  • The paper states that publication bias likely impacts the broadly positive results across included studies; that the lack of theorization in included studies makes it hard to know how broadly challenges and opportunities were considered, so the review cannot claim a conclusive list of challenges; and that bias inherent in the reviewing process is a limitation.
  • Evident from the text: the included evidence base is small in number and scope, many studies remained highly descriptive or illustrative, patient and caregiver challenges were primarily clinician perceptions rather than direct reports, and there was limited detail on the material properties and design of video consulting platforms.
  • The review focused on published literature and did not search grey literature, as stated in the methods.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/23775

Cites

83 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 158 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 64 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 31
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 54
69 of 69
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The absence of mention of specific interorganizational initiatives in the reviewed papers indicates that such initiatives were not present or studied in the included studies.

    “None of the papers mentioned specific interorganizational initiatives (eg, quality improvement collaboratives). This was a surprising silence given the recognized importance of interorganizational networking for the spread of innovation [44,55,61].”
1 of 1

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Conflicting counts for telehealth champions as an opportunity

    Major

    The results count champions or coordinators as an opportunity in 8 articles, but later say that 11 articles reported telehealth champions helping manage organizational complexity.

  • Study [32] described as both challenges-only and covering opportunities

    Minor

    The results classify article [32] as reporting challenges exclusively, while the review elsewhere describes that article as an overview of both opportunities and challenges.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 85 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Bhatta, R, 2015, J Nepal Health Res Counc, 13, 149
  2. Rodgers, EM, 1983, Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd edition
  3. Bradford, N, 2016, Rural Remote Health, 16, 4268

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–163 of 163

Metadata

Authors
James, H. M., Papoutsi, C., Wherton, J., Greenhalgh, T., & Shaw, S. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Shaw, Sara E
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2021-01-26
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
e23775
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3119587736
Cited by
164
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 15
FWCI
5.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (WT104830MA, 104830/Z/14/Z)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (BRC-1215–20008, NIHR- BRC-1215-20008)
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • University of Waterloo
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/V010069/1)
  • NIHR Sheffield Biomedical Research Centre
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
video consultation, telemedicine, scale-up, spreads, sustainability, NASSS framework, remote care, hub and spoke model, reimbursement, resistance to change, technology adoption, primary care, rehabilitation, mental health, geriatrics, cancer surgery, diabetes mellitus, organizational factors, health policy
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Primary Health Care, Telemedicine, Videoconferencing, 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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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