Physician-Led Synchronous Telemedicine Compared to Face-To-Face Care in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1177/01632787241273911
Keyna Bracken, Jennifer Salerno, Ling Yang
{"title":"Physician-Led Synchronous Telemedicine Compared to Face-To-Face Care in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Keyna Bracken, Jennifer Salerno, Ling Yang","doi":"10.1177/01632787241273911","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The COVID-19 crisis rapidly introduced telemedicine as the predominate modality to deliver healthcare however this change has not received attention in primary care settings and the health-related impacts are unknown. The study's objective was to explore the effects of physician-led synchronous telemedicine compared to face-to-face care delivered in the primary care setting on healthcare system use and attributes of primary care as reported in recent studies. We performed a comprehensive literature search in five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycInfo) and critical appraisal using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Of 6,247 studies identified, 157 studies underwent full text review, and 19 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in the U.S. (78.9%) and used video and telephone telemedicine (57.9%). An outcome-based qualitative description and narrative synthesis showed similar or fewer emergency department visits, hospital visits, and prescribing, and fewer diagnostic tests and imaging for telemedicine visits compared to face-to-face care. Our systematic review fills a gap in the literature on telemedicine in primary care settings however our results need to be interpreted cautiously given studies' susceptibility to selection bias, confounding, and limited applicability to other health systems and time periods.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787241273911","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The COVID-19 crisis rapidly introduced telemedicine as the predominate modality to deliver healthcare however this change has not received attention in primary care settings and the health-related impacts are unknown. The study's objective was to explore the effects of physician-led synchronous telemedicine compared to face-to-face care delivered in the primary care setting on healthcare system use and attributes of primary care as reported in recent studies. We performed a comprehensive literature search in five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycInfo) and critical appraisal using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Of 6,247 studies identified, 157 studies underwent full text review, and 19 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in the U.S. (78.9%) and used video and telephone telemedicine (57.9%). An outcome-based qualitative description and narrative synthesis showed similar or fewer emergency department visits, hospital visits, and prescribing, and fewer diagnostic tests and imaging for telemedicine visits compared to face-to-face care. Our systematic review fills a gap in the literature on telemedicine in primary care settings however our results need to be interpreted cautiously given studies' susceptibility to selection bias, confounding, and limited applicability to other health systems and time periods.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医生主导的同步远程医疗与初级医疗中的面对面医疗相比:系统回顾。
COVID-19 危机迅速将远程医疗引入了医疗保健服务的主要模式,但这一变化在初级医疗机构中并未引起重视,其对健康的影响也不得而知。本研究的目的是探讨由医生主导的同步远程医疗与在初级医疗机构中提供的面对面医疗相比,对医疗系统的使用和初级医疗属性的影响,正如近期研究中所报告的那样。我们在五个数据库(MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane 系统综述数据库、Cochrane 对照试验中央登记册、PsycInfo)中进行了全面的文献检索,并使用乔安娜-布里格斯研究所的工具进行了批判性评估。在确定的 6,247 项研究中,157 项研究进行了全文审查,19 项研究被纳入其中。大多数研究在美国进行(78.9%),使用视频和电话远程医疗(57.9%)。基于结果的定性描述和叙述性综合显示,与面对面的医疗相比,远程医疗的急诊就诊、住院就诊和处方数量相似或更少,诊断检测和成像也更少。我们的系统综述填补了初级医疗机构远程医疗文献的空白,但鉴于研究容易出现选择偏差、混淆以及对其他医疗系统和时间段的适用性有限,我们需要谨慎解读研究结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
期刊最新文献
The Use of Contribution Analysis in Evaluating Health Interventions: A Scoping Review. Impact of Multi-point Nursing Strategies Under a Clinical Problem-Solving Framework on Adverse Events Associated With Thyroid Nodule Resection. Real Patient Participation in Workplace-Based Assessment of Health Professional Trainees: A Scoping Review. The Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of Self-Perceived Barriers for Physical Activity Questionnaire. Factors Associated With Agreement Between Parent and Childhood Cancer Survivor Reports on Child's Health Related Quality of Life.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1