CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 89Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationElectronic Health Records SystemsHealthcare Systems and Technology

Evaluation of a Digital Consultation and Self-Care Advice Tool in Primary Care: A Multi-Methods Study

Open access
Cowie, Julie, Calveley, Eileen, Bowers, Gillian, Bowers, John·2018·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
DOI 10.3390/ijerph15050896PMC PMC5981935
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Digital services are often regarded as a solution to the growing demands on primary care services. Provision of a tool offering advice to support self-management as well as the ability to digitally consult with a General Practitioner (GP) has the potential to alleviate some of the pressure on primary care. This paper reports on a Phase II, 6-month evaluation of eConsult, a web-based triage and consultation system that was piloted across 11 GP practices across Scotland. Through a multi-method approach the evaluation explored eConsult use across practices, exposing both barriers and facilitators to its adoption. Findings suggest that expectations that eConsult would offer an additional and alternative method of accessing GP services were largely met. However, there is less certainty that it has fulfilled expectations of promoting self-help. In addition, low uptake meant that evaluation of current effectiveness was difficult for practices to quantify. The presence of an eConsult champion(s) within the practice was seen to be a significant factor in ensuring successful integration of the tool. A lack of patient and staff engagement, insufficient support and lack of protocols around processes were seen as barriers to its success.

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 · 10.3390/ijerph15050896

Cites

19 of 19 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?

  • An economic evaluation of eConsult found no added costs, but could not tell if savings were made owing to low usage.

    “An economic evaluation of eConsult found no added costs, but they were unable to tell if savings were made owing to low usage. 40”

    From Effectiveness and safety of asynchronous telemedicine consultations in general practice: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

  • Three studies reported patient use of asynchronous telemedicine increased gradually before the pandemic, and in 2016 20% of UK general practices planned to introduce it.

    “Three studies reported patient use of asynchronous telemedicine increased gradually before the pandemic 26,31–33,40 and in 2016 20% of UK general practices planned to introduce it. 49”

    From Effectiveness and safety of asynchronous telemedicine consultations in general practice: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

    Citation 49 is attached to the assertion that, in 2016, 20% of UK general practices planned to introduce asynchronous telemedicine. The Introduction discusses slow uptake of online consultations, and Results §3.1 reports use in a 2017 Scottish pilot, but neither gives the claimed 2016 UK-wide figure. Searches for “20%,” “one in five,” and plans to introduce online consultations found no passage addressing it; the earlier claim about gradual patient use has separate citations. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • These barriers and challenges are consistent with other qualitative studies.

    “These barriers and challenges are consistent with other qualitative studies [87,92].”

    From Effectiveness and Acceptability of Asynchronous Digital Health in Asthma Care: Mixed Methods Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as [92]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [17]Andreassen H. Trondsen M. How to Use Qualitative Interviews in E-health Research Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on eHealth, Telemedicine, and Social Medicine: eTELEMED Lisbon, Portugal 22–27 February 2015
  2. [18]Ritchie J. Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research Analyzing Qualitative Data Bryman A. Burgess R.G. Taylor & Francis Group London, UK 1994 173 194

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cowie, J., Calveley, E., Bowers, G., & Bowers, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Stirling (GB)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
Corresponding author
Cowie, Julie
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-05-02
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
896
ISSN
1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ijerph15050896
PMC
PMC5981935
OpenAlex
W2800943224
Cited by
89
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6
FWCI
8.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ResearchOnline (Glasgow Caledonian University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
e-consultation, digital health services, primary care, self-care advice, self-management, triage, general practitioners, technology adoption barriers and facilitators, patient engagement, employee engagement, workload reduction
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Scotland, Self Care, Triage, Remote Consultation, Internet, Young Adult, General Practitioners

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