Cited by 366Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationPrimary Care and Health OutcomesHealthcare Systems and Technology

Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations: a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care

Open access
Hammersley, Victoria, Donaghy, Eddie, Parker, Richard, McNeilly, Hannah, Atherton, Helen, Bikker, Annemieke, Campbell, John, McKinstry, Brian·2019·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

Background: Growing demands on primary care services have led to policymakers promoting video consultations (VCs) to replace routine face-to-face consultations (FTFCs) in general practice. Aim: To explore the content, quality, and patient experience of VC, telephone (TC), and FTFCs in general practice. Design and setting: Comparison of audio-recordings of follow-up consultations in UK primary care. Method: Primary care clinicians were provided with video-consulting equipment. Participating patients required a smartphone, tablet, or computer with camera. Clinicians invited patients requiring a follow-up consultation to choose a VC, TC, or FTFC. Consultations were audio-recorded and analysed for content and quality. Participant experience was explored in post-consultation questionnaires. Case notes were reviewed for NHS resource use. Results: Of the recordings, 149/163 were suitable for analysis. VC recruits were younger, and more experienced in communicating online. FTFCs were longer than VCs (mean difference +3.7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1 to 5.2) or TCs (+4.1 minutes, 95% CI = 2.6 to 5.5). On average, patients raised fewer problems in VCs (mean 1.5, standard deviation [SD] 0.8) compared with FTFCs (mean 2.1, SD 1.1) and demonstrated fewer instances of information giving by clinicians and patients. FTFCs scored higher than VCs and TCs on consultation-quality items. Conclusion: VC may be suitable for simple problems not requiring physical examination. VC, in terms of consultation length, content, and quality, appeared similar to TC. Both approaches appeared less ‘information rich’ than FTFC. Technical problems were common and, though patients really liked VC, infrastructure issues would need to be addressed before the technology and approach can be mainstreamed in primary care.

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/bjgp19x704573

Cites

25 of 25 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
Hammersley, V., Donaghy, E., Parker, R., McNeilly, H., Atherton, H., Bikker, A., Campbell, J., & McKinstry, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2019-07-01
Volume
69
Issue
686
Pages
e595-e604
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2955926508
Cited by
366
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 3
FWCI
46.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • 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, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
video consultation, telephone consultation, face-to-face consultation, primary care, consultation quality, patient experience, follow-up visits, consultation time, information sharing, telemedicine, NHS resource use, general practice
MeSH terms
Adult, Aftercare, Aged, Appointments and Schedules, Communication, Delivery of Health Care, Female, United Kingdom, Health Services Research, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Physician-Patient Relations, Primary Health Care, Scotland, Telephone, Time Factors, Remote Consultation, Videoconferencing, 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