Evidence mapPaperPMID 39110960Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Exploring How Patients Are Supported to Use Online Services in Primary Care in England Through "Digital Facilitation": Survey Study.

Rachel Winder, John L Campbell, Nurunnahar Akter, Abodunrin Q Aminu, Jeffrey Lambert, Emma Cockcroft, Chloe Thomas, Christopher E Clark, Carol Bryce, Jon Sussex and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Evolution of the general practice receptionist role and online services: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  4. 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.

Rachel WinderUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9926-1280
John L CampbellUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6752-3493
Nurunnahar AkterUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8802-9080
Abodunrin Q AminuUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2349-407X
Jeffrey LambertDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4774-9054
Emma CockcroftUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3798-9492
Chloe ThomasUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8881-3393
Christopher E ClarkUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7526-3038
Carol BryceUnit of Academic Primary Care, University of Warwick, Warwick, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1484-9032
Jon SussexRAND Europe, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8970-4546
Helen AthertonPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7072-1925
Christine MarriottUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8450-6222
Gary AbelUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2231-5161

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth service policy in many jurisdictions is driving greater investment into digital primary care services. While some patients and practices may benefit, there are concerns that not all are able or wish to access primary care services online. "Digital facilitation" is the "range of processes, procedures, and personnel seeking to support patients in their uptake and use of online services" and may address such concerns.

objectiveAs part of a multimethod research program, we undertook surveys of practice staff and patients to gain insight into the support being offered by practices and explore patients' experiences of this support.

methodsGeneral practices from 4 regions of England were sent a questionnaire exploring the modes of digital facilitation offered, the personnel involved in its delivery, and views on the motivations and drivers for providing support. Moreover, 12,822 patients registered with 62 general practices (predominantly those providing practice survey responses) were sent a questionnaire exploring their experiences of any support offered by their practice to use online services.

resultsAlmost one-third of practices (156/500, 31.2%) responded to the practice survey, with most reporting using passive modes of digital facilitation (eg, display, leaflets, and SMS text messages) and few using active modes (eg, offering tablets or computers or using practice champions). However, 90.9% (130/143) reported providing ad hoc support. Practices agreed that it was the responsibility of both the practice (105/144, 72.9%) and the wider National Health Service (118/143, 82.5%) to support patients in using online services and that providing such support benefited the practice (126/144, 87.5%) and their patients (132/144, 91.7%). Nearly a quarter of the patients (3051/12,822, 23.8%) responded to the patient survey, with few (522/3051, 17.11% or less) reporting awareness of any modes of digital facilitation apart from text messages and emails (1205/3051, 39.5%) and only 13.36% (392/2935) reporting receiving support to use online services. Adjusted logistic regression analyses showed that older patients had a lower likelihood of 4 outcomes: being aware of, or of using, digital facilitation efforts, or being told about or being helped to use online services (all P<.05), particularly with regard to being helped to use online services (adjusted odds ratio for patients aged 85 years versus those aged 55-64 years: 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.36). However, ethnic minority participants or those for whom their first language was not English had positive associations with these outcomes.

conclusionsGeneral practices recognize that patients would benefit from support to access online services. However, the support provided is often passive or ad hoc, and patients were seldom aware of digital facilitation efforts that their practice provided. There is potential to increase engagement with online primary care services by providing more support for all patients, particularly to provide targeted support for older patients.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedEnglandFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultaccess to online health care servicesdigital supportdigital technologygeneral practicehealth services researchinequalitiesonline servicesprimary careremote consultationsurvey

Identifiers

PMID39110960
PMCPMC11339568

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.