Exploring patients' and clinicians' experiences of video consultations in primary care: a systematic scoping review
Open accessAbstract
Background: Video consultation (VC) is an emerging consultation mode in general practice. The challenges and benefits of implementing it are not necessarily realised until it is in use, and being experienced by patients and clinicians. To date, there has been no review of the evidence about how patients and clinicians experience VC in general practice. Aim: The study aimed to explore both patients' and clinicians' experiences of VCs in primary care. Design & setting: A systematic scoping review was carried out of empirical studies. Method: All major databases were searched for empirical studies of any design, published from 1 January 2010 to 11 October 2018 in the English language. Studies were included where synchronous VCs occurred between a patient and a clinician in a primary care setting. Outcomes of interest related to experience of use. The quality of included studies were assessed. Findings were analysed using narrative synthesis. Results: Seven studies were included in the review. Patients reported being satisfied with VC, describing reduced waiting times and travel costs as a benefit. For patients and clinicians, VC was not deemed appropriate for all presentations and all situations, and a face-to-face consultation was seen as preferable where this was possible. Conclusion: The findings of this scoping review show that primary care patients and clinicians report both positive and negative experiences when using VCs, and these experiences are, to a certain extent, context dependent. VC is potentially more convenient for patients, but is not considered superior to a face-to-face consultation. Accounts of experience are useful in the planning and implementation of any VC service.
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
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?
Almost all primary studies of video versus face-to-face appointments were underpowered and had highly-selected samples.
“almost all primary studies were underpowered and had highly-selected samples”
From Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services: A New Conceptual Framework Incorporating Complexity and Practical Ethics (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
Patients randomized to video did no worse clinically and were no less satisfied than those randomized to usual care, and costs where measured were similar.
“Overall, patients randomized to video did no worse clinically and were no less satisfied than those randomized to usual care, and that costs (where measured) were similar”
From Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services: A New Conceptual Framework Incorporating Complexity and Practical Ethics (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
Qualitative studies had indicated high patient and staff satisfaction but frequent technical problems.
“Qualitative studies had indicated high patient and staff satisfaction but frequent technical problems (113–115)”
From Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services: A New Conceptual Framework Incorporating Complexity and Practical Ethics (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
Dozens of randomized controlled trials have compared video with face-to-face appointments in low-risk patients with stable long-term conditions.
“there have been dozens of randomized controlled trials comparing video with face to face appointments in low-risk patients with stable long-term conditions (109–114)”
From Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services: A New Conceptual Framework Incorporating Complexity and Practical Ethics (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 169
- Authors
- Thiyagarajan, A., Grant, C., Griffiths, F., & Atherton, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Warwick (GB)
- University of the Witwatersrand (ZA)
- Corresponding author
- Atherton, Helen
- Venue
- BJGP Open
- Published
- 2020-03-17
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- bjgpopen20X101020
- ISSN
- 2398-3795 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7330183
- OpenAlex
- W3011834312
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 16
- FWCI
- 4.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- BJGP Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (IPF-2017-11-007)
- 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
- video consultation, telemedicine, primary care, general practice, patient experience, clinician experience, patient satisfaction, waiting time, face-to-face consultation
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
