Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36787223›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2023

Usability of Telehealth Systems for Noncommunicable Diseases in Primary Care From the COVID-19 Pandemic Onward: Systematic Review.

Roberta Lins Gonçalves, Adriana Silvina Pagano, Zilma Silveira Nogueira Reis, Ken Brackstone, Tainá Costa Pereira Lopes, Sarah Almeida Cordeiro, Julia Macedo Nunes, Seth Kwaku Afagbedzi, Michael Head, Wagner Meira and 2 more

Open access · goldFull text readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Provider-level variation in the delivery of primary care telehealth for the rural Medicare Advantage population.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Roberta Lins Gonçalves *Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-4976-0716
Adriana Silvina Pagano *Department of Linguistics, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-3150-3503
Zilma Silveira Nogueira Reis *Department of Linguistics, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-6374-9295
Ken Brackstone *University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6882-3260
Tainá Costa Pereira Lopes *Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Faculdade de Educação Física e Fisioterapia, Manaus, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2867-7027
Sarah Almeida Cordeiro *Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Faculdade de Educação Física e Fisioterapia, Manaus, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-4520-961X
Julia Macedo Nunes *Department of Linguistics, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2555-7190
Seth Kwaku Afagbedzi *University of Ghana, Legon-Accra, Ghana.ORCID 0000-0002-4566-8296
Michael Head *University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1189-0531
Wagner Meira *Department of Linguistics, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2614-2723
James Batchelor *University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5307-552X
Antônio Luiz Pinho Ribeiro *Department of Linguistics, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0364-3584
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BRUniversity of Southampton · GBUniversidade Federal do Amazonas · BRHospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BRUniversity of Ghana · GH

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/T02528X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth was expanded without the opportunity to extensively evaluate the adopted technology's usability.

objectiveWe aimed to synthesize evidence on health professionals' perceptions regarding the usability of telehealth systems in the primary care of individuals with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs; hypertension and diabetes) from the COVID-19 pandemic onward.

methodsA systematic review was performed of clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective observational studies, and studies that used qualitative data collection and analysis methods published in English, Spanish, and Portuguese from March 2020 onward. The databases queried were MEDLINE, Embase, BIREME, IEEE Xplore, BVS, Google Scholar, and grey literature. Studies involving health professionals who used telehealth systems in primary care and managed patients with NCDs from the COVID-19 pandemic onward were considered eligible. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed. Data were extracted to provide a narrative qualitative evidence synthesis of the included articles. The risk of bias and methodological quality of the included studies were analyzed. The primary outcome was the usability of telehealth systems, while the secondary outcomes were satisfaction and the contexts in which the telehealth system was used.

resultsWe included 11 of 417 retrieved studies, which had data from 248 health care professionals. These health care professionals were mostly doctors and nurses with prior experience in telehealth in high- and middle-income countries. Overall, 9 studies (82%) were qualitative studies and 2 (18%) were quasiexperimental or multisite trial studies. Moreover, 7 studies (64%) addressed diabetes, 1 (9%) addressed diabetes and hypertension, and 3 (27%) addressed chronic diseases. Most studies used a survey to assess usability. With a moderate confidence level, we concluded that health professionals considered the usability of telehealth systems to be good and felt comfortable and satisfied. Patients felt satisfied using telehealth. The most important predictor for using digital health technologies was ease of use. The main barriers were technological challenges, connectivity issues, low computer literacy, inability to perform complete physical examination, and lack of training. Although the usability of telehealth systems was considered good, there is a need for research that investigates factors that may influence the perceptions of telehealth usability, such as differences between private and public services; differences in the level of experience of professionals, including professional experience and experience with digital tools; and differences in gender, age groups, occupations, and settings.

conclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic has generated incredible demand for virtual care. Professionals' favorable perceptions of the usability of telehealth indicate that it can facilitate access to quality care. Although there are still challenges to telehealth, more than infrastructure challenges, the most reported challenges were related to empowering people for digital health.

trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021296887; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=296887. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.21801/ppcrj.2022.82.6.

Indexed as

COVID-19Noncommunicable DiseasesTelemedicineHumansPandemicsPrimary Health CareProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesCOVID-19COVID-19 pandemichealth care professionalnoncommunicable diseasetelehealthusability

Identifiers

PMID36787223
PMCPMC10022651
OpenAlexW4319321743

What Socratic holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read24
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.