Telephone versus video consultations: A systematic review of comparative effectiveness studies and guidance for choosing the most appropriate modality.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-29 DOI:10.1177/1357633X241232464
Liam J Caffery, Soraia De Camargo Catapan, Monica L Taylor, Jaimon T Kelly, Helen M Haydon, Anthony C Smith, Centaine L Snoswell
{"title":"Telephone versus video consultations: A systematic review of comparative effectiveness studies and guidance for choosing the most appropriate modality.","authors":"Liam J Caffery, Soraia De Camargo Catapan, Monica L Taylor, Jaimon T Kelly, Helen M Haydon, Anthony C Smith, Centaine L Snoswell","doi":"10.1177/1357633X241232464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveThis systematic review compared clinical, service and cost effectiveness of telephone consultations (TC) to video consultations (VC).MethodsWe searched Embase, CINAHL and MEDLINE for empirical studies that compared TC to VC using clinical, service or economic outcome measures. Clinician or patient preference and satisfaction studies were excluded. Findings were synthesised descriptively.ResultsA total of 79 articles were included. The most effective modality was found to be VC in 40 studies (50%) and TC in 3 (4%). VC and TC were found to be equivalent in 28 of the included articles (35%). VC were superior or equivalent to TC for all clinical outcomes. When compared to TC, VC were likely to have better patient engagement and retention, to improve transfer decisions, and reduce downstream sub-acute care utilisation. The impact of telehealth modality on consultation time, completion rates, failure-to-attend rates and acute care utilisation was mixed. VC were consistently found to be more cost effective despite having a higher incremental cost than TC.ConclusionsOur systematic review demonstrates equal or better, but not inferior clinical and cost outcomes for consultations delivered by VC when compared to TC. VC appear to be more clinically effective when visual information is required, when verbal communication with the patient is impaired and when patient engagement and retention is linked to clinical outcomes. We have provided conditions where VC should be used in preference to TC. These can be used by clinicians to guide the choice of telehealth modality. Cost effectiveness is also important to consider when choosing modality.</p>","PeriodicalId":50024,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare","volume":" ","pages":"909-918"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X241232464","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveThis systematic review compared clinical, service and cost effectiveness of telephone consultations (TC) to video consultations (VC).MethodsWe searched Embase, CINAHL and MEDLINE for empirical studies that compared TC to VC using clinical, service or economic outcome measures. Clinician or patient preference and satisfaction studies were excluded. Findings were synthesised descriptively.ResultsA total of 79 articles were included. The most effective modality was found to be VC in 40 studies (50%) and TC in 3 (4%). VC and TC were found to be equivalent in 28 of the included articles (35%). VC were superior or equivalent to TC for all clinical outcomes. When compared to TC, VC were likely to have better patient engagement and retention, to improve transfer decisions, and reduce downstream sub-acute care utilisation. The impact of telehealth modality on consultation time, completion rates, failure-to-attend rates and acute care utilisation was mixed. VC were consistently found to be more cost effective despite having a higher incremental cost than TC.ConclusionsOur systematic review demonstrates equal or better, but not inferior clinical and cost outcomes for consultations delivered by VC when compared to TC. VC appear to be more clinically effective when visual information is required, when verbal communication with the patient is impaired and when patient engagement and retention is linked to clinical outcomes. We have provided conditions where VC should be used in preference to TC. These can be used by clinicians to guide the choice of telehealth modality. Cost effectiveness is also important to consider when choosing modality.

电话咨询与视频咨询:比较效果研究的系统回顾和选择最合适方式的指导。
目的本系统综述比较了电话会诊(TC)和视频会诊(VC)的临床、服务和成本效益:我们检索了 Embase、CINAHL 和 MEDLINE 中使用临床、服务或经济结果衡量标准对电话会诊与视频会诊进行比较的实证研究。临床医生或患者的偏好和满意度研究除外。对研究结果进行了描述性综合:结果:共收录了 79 篇文章。在 40 项研究(50%)中发现最有效的方法是 VC,在 3 项研究(4%)中发现是 TC。在纳入的文章中,有 28 篇(35%)发现 VC 和 TC 的效果相当。就所有临床结果而言,VC 均优于或等同于 TC。与 TC 相比,VC 可能会更好地吸引和留住患者,改善转院决策,并减少下游亚急性护理的使用。远程医疗模式对会诊时间、完成率、未能就诊率和急性护理使用率的影响不一。尽管与 TC 相比,VC 的增量成本更高,但其成本效益却更高:我们的系统性研究表明,与 TC 相比,由 VC 提供的会诊具有相同或更好的临床效果和成本效益,但并不逊色。在需要视觉信息、与患者的语言交流受阻以及患者参与度和保留率与临床结果相关联的情况下,虚拟视像似乎更有临床效果。我们提供了在哪些情况下应优先使用 VC 而不是 TC。临床医生可以利用这些条件来指导远程保健方式的选择。在选择模式时,成本效益也是重要的考虑因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.10
自引率
10.60%
发文量
174
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare provides excellent peer reviewed coverage of developments in telemedicine and e-health and is now widely recognised as the leading journal in its field. Contributions from around the world provide a unique perspective on how different countries and health systems are using new technology in health care. Sections within the journal include technology updates, editorials, original articles, research tutorials, educational material, review articles and reports from various telemedicine organisations. A subscription to this journal will help you to stay up-to-date in this fast moving and growing area of medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信