MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415960315 · doi:10.3389/fped.2025.1610407

Synchronous virtual care in children’s health care: a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4415960315 on OpenAlexafffund
Rosslynn Zulla, David Nicholas, S. Sutherland, Eyal Cohen, Kathryn A. Birnie, Samantha J. Anthony, Paula Robeson, Enid K. Selkirk, Tieghan Killackey, Vina Mohabir, Jennifer Stinson

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesCARE CanadaUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHealth careTelemedicineDigital healthMEDLINETelehealthQualitative researchVirtual reality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Synchronous virtual care comprises real-time, online-mediated healthcare. This approach has increasingly been used in pediatrics, largely implemented in the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence is limited on the impacts of this mode of care delivery on patient and family experience and care quality. To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review to amalgamate existing knowledge about the perceived impact of synchronous virtual care as it is experienced by children and their families across multiple disciplines. Methods: Following guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute, a search of the peer reviewed, published literature was conducted employing multiple databases: APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, EBSCO, Embase, and OVID. Reviewed articles were published in English from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2023, and addressed virtual care for children and their families. The initial search generated 1,079 articles, which underwent abstract and then full-text screening. A total of 157 full text articles were screened, yielding 117 articles from which data was extracted. Results: Virtual care interventions, generally appearing in the last decade (2013-2023), have been largely studied using quantitative approaches. They tend to be positively viewed by youth and parents as indicated by identified benefits and general satisfaction. However, articles report both facilitating and hindering elements of virtual care, and barriers are reported that reflect inequities associated with social determinants of health. Such barriers are shown to impede the use of virtual care among some marginalized communities. The review indicates that effective virtual care approaches require (a) program/organizational infrastructure support, (b) training for both service providers and users, and (c) tailoring to clinical needs. Conclusion: Considering virtual care "fit" for target patients and families is important. Implications for clinical care as well as guidelines for future research are offered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0120.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207