The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using alternatives to face-to-face consultations: a survey of prevalence and attitudes in general practice
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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 [49]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“most remote consultations before and during the pandemic occurred by telephone (3, 12–15).”
From Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services: A New Conceptual Framework Incorporating Complexity and Practical Ethics (2021) · cites this paper as [12]
In the citing paper
“Levels of remote consulting outside the research setting were very low pre-pandemic (12, 13, 119)”
From Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services: A New Conceptual Framework Incorporating Complexity and Practical Ethics (2021) · cites this paper as [12]
In the citing paper
“There was very little research on e-consultations prior to the pandemic, and findings were limited (12, 103–107)”
From Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services: A New Conceptual Framework Incorporating Complexity and Practical Ethics (2021) · cites this paper as [12]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
National Institute for Health Research
Evans, R. G. (2014) · Nursing Standard · doi:10.7748/ns.28.49.32.s37 · Cited by 1,350
Ziébland, S., & McPherson, A. (2006) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02467.x · Cited by 657
College of General Practitioners
Abercrombie, G. F., Hughes, H. L. G., & Hunt, J. H. (1954) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.1.4857.336-c · Cited by 504
Improved Quality At Kaiser Permanente Through E-Mail Between Physicians And Patients
Zhou, Y., Kanter, M. H., Wang, J. J., & Garrido, T. (2010) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0048 · Cited by 255
Telephone consultation and triage: effects on health care use and patient satisfaction
Bunn, F., Byrne, G., & Kendall, S. (2004) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004180.pub2 · Cited by 241
Campbell, J. L., Fletcher, E., Britten, N., Green, C., Holt, T. A., Lattimer, V., Richards, D. A., Richards, S. H., Salisbury, C., Calitri, R., et al. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61058-8 · Cited by 236
Self-citationAssociation of Online Patient Access to Clinicians and Medical Records With Use of Clinical Services
Palen, T. E., Ross, C. A., Powers, J. D., & Xu, S. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.14126 · Cited by 193
Email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals
Atherton, H., Sawmynaden, P., Sheikh, A., Majeed, A., & Car, J. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007978.pub2 · Cited by 125
Self-citationElectronic Communication Improves Access, But Barriers To Its Widespread Adoption Remain
Bishop, T. F., Press, M. J., Mendelsohn, J. L., & Casalino, L. P. (2013) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1151 · Cited by 115
Newhouse, N., Lupiáñez‐Villanueva, F., Codagnone, C., & Atherton, H. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3700 · Cited by 82
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Acceptability, benefits, and challenges of video consulting: a qualitative study in primary care
Donaghy, E., Atherton, H., Hammersley, V., McNeilly, H., Bikker, A., Robbins, L., Campbell, J., & McKinstry, B. (2019) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp19x704141 · Cited by 537
Self-citationMurphy, M., Scott, L. J., Salisbury, C., Turner, A., Scott, A., Denholm, R., Lewis, R., Iyer, G., Macleod, J., & Horwood, J. (2021) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp.2020.0948 · Cited by 486
Self-citationHammersley, V., Donaghy, E., Parker, R., McNeilly, H., Atherton, H., Bikker, A., Campbell, J., & McKinstry, B. (2019) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp19x704573 · Cited by 366
Self-citationGreenhalgh, T., Rosen, R., Shaw, S. E., Byng, R., Faulkner, S., Finlay, T., Grundy, E., Husain, L., Hughes, G., Leone, C., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2021.726095 · Cited by 173
“Levels of remote consulting outside the research setting were very low pre-pandemic (12, 13, 119).”
BackgroundThiyagarajan, A., Grant, C., Griffiths, F., & Atherton, H. (2020) · BJGP Open · doi:10.3399/bjgpopen20x101020 · Cited by 169
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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
- PMC
- PMC4917048
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Systems and Technology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › 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
