Global Evidence on the Sustainability of Telemedicine in Outpatient and Primary Care During the First 2 Years of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review Using the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rapid implementation of telemedicine during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic raises questions about the sustainability of this intervention at the global level. OBJECTIVE: This research examines the patient experience, health inequalities, and clinician-patient relationship in telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic's first 2 years, aiming to identify sustainability factors. METHODS: This study was based on a prepublished protocol using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. We included academic and gray literature published between March 2020 and March 2022 according to these criteria: (1) population (any group); (2) concepts (patient experience, clinician-patient relationship, health inequalities); (3) context (telemedicine in primary and outpatient care); (4) excluding studies pertaining to surgery, oncology, and (inpatient) psychiatry. We searched Ovid Medline/PubMed (January 1, 2022), Web of Science (March 19, 2022), Google/Google Scholar (February and March 2022), and others. The risk of bias was not assessed as per guidance. We used an analysis table for the studies and color-coded tabular mapping against a health care technology adoption framework to identify sustainability (using double-blind extraction). RESULTS: Of the 134 studies that met our criteria, 49.3% (66/134) reported no specific population group. Regarding the concepts, 41.8% (56/134) combined 2 of the concepts studied. The context analysis identified that 56.0% (75/134) of the studies referred to, according to the definition in the United Kingdom, an outpatient (ambulatory care) setting, and 34.3% (46/134) referred to primary care. The patient experience analysis reflected positive satisfaction and sustained access during lockdowns. The clinician-patient relationship impacts were nuanced, affecting interaction and encounter quality. When mapping to the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework, 81.3% (109/134) of the studies referenced the innovation's sustainability. Although positive overall, there were some concerns about sustainability based on quality, eHealth literacy, and access to health care for vulnerable migrants and the uninsured. CONCLUSIONS: We identified confusion between the concepts of patient experience and patient satisfaction; therefore, future research could focus on established frameworks to qualify the patient experience across the whole pathway and not just the remote encounter. As expected, our research found mainly descriptive analyses, so there is a need for more robust evidence methods identifying impacts of changes in treatment pathways. This study illustrates modern methods to decolonize academic research by using gray literature extracts in other languages. We acknowledge that the use of Google to identify gray literature at the global level and in other languages has implications on reproducibility. We did not consider synchronous text-based communication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework 4z5ut; https://osf.io/4z5ut/.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.153 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".