Patients’ perspective about synchronous teleconsultation with a general practitioner: a mixed-method systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Synchronous teleconsultations using video or phone have become an increasingly popular method for delivering healthcare, especially in primary care. This modality enhances access to care, particularly for individuals in remote or underserved areas, and was especially significant during disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these benefits, patient perspectives on teleconsultations with general practitioners (GPs) remain underexplored. Factors such as consultation type, convenience, and technology influence patient satisfaction and acceptance, but concerns persist about the effectiveness of remote consultations for complex cases. This systematic review explores patients' use, attitudes, experiences, satisfaction, and preferences regarding synchronous teleconsultations with GPs, aiming to identify factors influencing the choice of teleconsultation over face-to-face consultations. METHODS: The review included 46 studies published until March 2023, sourced from PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library, following PRISMA guidelines. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies were analyzed, representing diverse contexts. RESULTS: Findings reveal that patient satisfaction with teleconsultation is influenced by consultation purpose, convenience, technological capabilities, and continuity of care. Video consultations are preferred over phone consultations, particularly for follow-ups and routine issues. Teleconsultation is seen as less effective for complex consultations requiring physical exams. Patient characteristics, including age, socioeconomic status, and technology familiarity, impact acceptance. Privacy concerns, data security, and diagnostic accuracy remain significant barriers. Continuity of care is better maintained when teleconsultation involves established patient-GP relationships. CONCLUSIONS: The review emphasizes the need for hybrid care models and policies aligned with patient preferences, focusing on accessibility, technology, and privacy safeguards. Future research should address barriers for vulnerable populations and equitable access.
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 | 0.018 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".