ReviewClinics and practice2026
Telehealth for Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare: Evidence Map of Effectiveness, Patient and Provider Experiences and Preferences, and Patient Engagement Strategies.
Review in Clinics and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to systematically map evidence to inform best practices for sexual and reproductive healthcare delivered via telehealth (TeleSRH) in United States-based Title X-funded clinics.
methodsWe searched three databases (2017-2025) for studies evaluating effectiveness, harms, patient and provider experiences, barriers/facilitators, and engagement strategies encompassing TeleSRH for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), contraceptive care/family planning (CC/FP), and sexual wellness, in countries with a human development index of ≥0.8.
resultsFrom 5963 references and 436 articles, we included 142 eligible publications. TeleSRH use declined since the COVID-19 pandemic's peak but remains higher than pre-pandemic. Evidence comes mostly from poor-quality studies. TeleSRH increases access and adherence to STI prevention (e.g., pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV). Tele-follow-up may safely facilitate HIV care continuity. For CC/FP, TeleSRH is comparable to in-person care for patient satisfaction and uptake; patients are less likely to select long-acting reversible contraception but post-initiation tele-follow-up may increase its continuation rates. Vasectomy completion rates may be similar between pre-procedural counseling via telehealth versus in-person. TeleSRH's potential benefits might include reduced travel time, wait times, no-show rates, and clinic human resource burden (via tele-triaging) and increased preventative screening rates for STIs and non-communicable diseases, prescription refill rates, ability to receive confidential care in preferred settings, and rural/marginalized community outreach. Implementation challenges span technological and capital constraints, provider availability, staff capability building, restrictive policies, language incompatibility, and patient mistrust. Supplementing synchronous TeleSRH with asynchronous communication (e.g., mobile application) may improve continued patient engagement.
conclusionsPreventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic TeleSRH can be effective, with high patient acceptability; however, effectiveness and adoption hinge on contextual factors outlined in this review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.