Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37400807›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

The diversity of providers' and consumers' views of virtual versus inpatient care provision: a qualitative study.

Robyn Clay-Williams, Peter Hibbert, Ann Carrigan, Natalie Roberts, Elizabeth Austin, Diana Fajardo Pulido, Isabelle Meulenbroeks, Hoa Mi Nguyen, Mitchell Sarkies, Sarah Hatem and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Innovative Models of Care for Hospitals of the Future.International journal of health policy and management · 2024
    Article
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

13 authors.

Robyn Clay-WilliamsAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia. robyn.clay-williams@mq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6107-7445
Peter HibbertAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ann CarriganAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Natalie RobertsAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Elizabeth AustinAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Diana Fajardo PulidoAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Isabelle MeulenbroeksAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Hoa Mi NguyenAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Mitchell SarkiesAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sarah HatemAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Katherine MakaWestern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Graeme LoyWestern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jeffrey BraithwaiteAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

Health Infrastructure HI20314
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA broad-based international shift to virtual care models over recent years has accelerated following COVID-19. Although there are increasing numbers of studies and reviews, less is known about clinicians' and consumers' perspectives concerning virtual modes in contrast to inpatient modes of delivery.

methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods study in late 2021 examining consumers' and providers' expectations of and perspectives on virtual care in the context of a new facility planned for the north-western suburbs of Sydney, Australia. Data were collected via a series of workshops, and a demographic survey. Recorded qualitative text data were analysed thematically, and surveys were analysed using SPSS v22.

resultsAcross 12 workshops, 33 consumers and 49 providers from varied backgrounds, ethnicities, language groups, age ranges and professions participated. Four advantages, strengths or benefits of virtual care reported were: patient factors and wellbeing, accessibility, better care and health outcomes, and additional health system benefits, while four disadvantages, weaknesses or risks of virtual care were: patient factors and wellbeing, accessibility, resources and infrastructure, and quality and safety of care.

conclusionsVirtual care was widely supported but the model is not suitable for all patients. Health and digital literacy and appropriate patient selection were key success criteria, as was patient choice. Key concerns included technology failures or limitations and that virtual models may be no more efficient than inpatient care models. Considering consumer and provider views and expectations prior to introducing virtual models of care may facilitate greater acceptance and uptake.

Indexed as

COVID-19InpatientsAustraliaHumansQualitative ResearchConsumers’ views of careHospitalsInnovation in care modelsProviders’ views of careQualitative researchVirtual care

Identifiers

PMID37400807
PMCPMC10318821

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.