Cited by 120Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealthcare Systems and TechnologyPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Using alternatives to face-to-face consultations: a survey of prevalence and attitudes in general practice

Open access
Brant, Heather, Atherton, Helen, Ziebland, Sue, McKinstry, Brian, Campbell, John L, Salisbury, Chris·2016·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The ubiquitous use of communication technologies has led to an expectation that a similar approach should extend to health care. Despite considerable rhetoric about the need for general practices to offer alternatives to face-to-face consultations, such as telephone, email, and internet video consultations, the extent to which such technologies are actually used at present is unclear. AIM: The aim of the survey was to identify the frequency and range of ways in which general practices are providing (or planning) alternatives to face-to-face consultations. DESIGN AND SETTING: A postal survey of practices around Bristol, Oxford, Lothian, the Highlands, and the Western Isles of Scotland. METHOD: A postal questionnaire survey was sent to each of the GPs and practice managers of 421 practices between January and May 2015. RESULTS: A response was received from 319/421 practices (76%). Although the majority of the practices reported that they were conducting telephone consultations frequently (n = 211/318, 66%), fewer were implementing email consultations (n = 18/318, 6%), and most (n = 169/318, 53%) had no plans to introduce this. None were currently using internet video, and 86% (n = 273/318) had no plans to introduce internet video consultations. These findings were repeated in the reported use of alternatives to face-to-face consultations at an individual GP level. Optional free text responses were completed by 28% of responders, and offered an explanation for the (often perceived) barriers and incentives for implementation. CONCLUSION: Despite policy pressure to introduce consultations by email and internet video, there is a general reluctance among GPs to implement alternatives to face-to-face consultations. This identifies a substantial gap between rhetoric and reality in terms of the likelihood of certain alternatives (email, video) changing practice in the near future.

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 · 10.3399/bjgp16x685597

Cites

23 of 23 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?

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
Brant, H., Atherton, H., Ziebland, S., McKinstry, B., Campbell, J. L., & Salisbury, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2016-05-23
Volume
66
Issue
648
Pages
e460-e466
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2402175092
Cited by
120
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1
FWCI
11.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (13/59/08, HS&DR/13/59/08, NF-SI-0515-10043, NF-SI-0512-10128, SPCR-030)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
telephone consultation, email consultation, general practice, general practitioners, implementation barriers, primary care
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, England, Humans, Scotland, Video Recording, Prevalence, Workload, Patient Satisfaction, Remote Consultation, Health Care Surveys, Practice Management, Internet, Electronic Mail, General Practice

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