This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Digital Health Reviews (1444) Telehealth and Telemonitoring (1813) mHealth for Telemedicine and Homecare (450) eHealth Service, Product, Resource Reviews (40) Digital Health, Telehealth and e-Innovation in Clinical Settings (458) Clinical Communication, Electronic Consultation and Telehealth (659) eHealth Infrastructures (375)

Published on in Vol 27 (2025)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/55007, first published .
Uses of Virtual Care in Primary Care: Scoping Review

Uses of Virtual Care in Primary Care: Scoping Review

Uses of Virtual Care in Primary Care: Scoping Review

Authors of this article:

Payal Agarwal1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Glenn George Fletcher3 Author Orcid Image ;   Karishini Ramamoorthi1 Author Orcid Image ;   Xiaomei Yao3, 4 Author Orcid Image ;   Onil Bhattacharyya1, 2 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations (1) Metrics

    Review

    1Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

    2Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    3Program in Evidence-Based Care, Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    4Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Corresponding Author:

    Onil Bhattacharyya, MD, PhD

    Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care

    Women’s College Hospital

    76 Grenville Street

    Toronto, ON, M5S 1B2

    Canada

    Phone: 1 4163236400

    Email: Onil.bhattacharyya@wchospital.ca


    Background: The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed an uptake in virtual care. However, the rapid shift left unanswered questions about the impact of virtual care on the quality of primary care and its appropriateness and effectiveness. Moving forward, health care providers require guidance on how best to use virtual care to support high-quality primary care.

    Objective: This study aims to identify and summarize clinical studies and systematic reviews comparing virtual care and in-person care in primary care, with a focus on how virtual care can support key clinical functions such as triage, medical assessment and treatment, counseling, and rehabilitation in addition to the management of particular conditions.

    Methods: We conducted a scoping review following an established framework. Comprehensive searches were performed across the following databases: Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Emcare, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Other well-known websites were also searched. PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines were followed. Articles were selected by considering article type, language, care provided, intervention, mode of care delivery, and sample size.

    Results: A total of 13,667 articles were screened, and 219 (1.6%) articles representing 170 studies were included in the review. Of the 170 studies included, 142 (83.5%) were primary studies, and 28 (16.5%) were systematic reviews. The studies were grouped by functions of primary care, including triage (16/170, 9.4%), medical assessment and treatment of particular conditions (63/170, 37.1%), rehabilitation (17/170, 10%), and counseling (74/170, 43.5%). The studies suggested that many primary care functions could appropriately be conducted virtually. Virtual rehabilitation was comparable to in-person care and virtual counseling was found to be equally effective as in-person counseling in several contexts. Some of the studies indicated that many general primary care issues could be resolved virtually without the need for any additional follow-up, but data on diagnostic accuracy were limited. Virtual triage is clinically appropriate and led to fewer in-person visits, but overall impact on efficiency was unclear. Many studies found that virtual care was more convenient for many patients and provided care equivalent to in-person care for a range of conditions. Studies comparing appropriate antibiotic prescription between virtual and in-person care found variable impact by clinical condition. Studies on virtual chronic disease management observed variability in impact on overall disease control and clinical outcomes.

    Conclusions: Virtual care can be safe and appropriate for triage and seems equivalent to in-person care for counseling and some rehabilitation services; however, further studies are needed to determine specific contexts or medical conditions where virtual care is appropriate for diagnosis, management outcomes, and other functions of primary care. Virtual care needs to be adapted to fit a new set of patient and provider workflows to demonstrate positive impacts on experience, outcomes, and costs of care.

    J Med Internet Res 2025;27:e55007

    doi:10.2196/55007

    Keywords

    primary care; telemedicine; telehealth; virtual care; virtual health; virtual medicine; remote consultation; telephone consultation; video consultations; medical informatics; digital health; digital technology; digital intervention; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; coronavirus infections; PRISMA 


    Background

    The COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant uptake of virtual care use, with increasing recognition that virtual care will continue to play a key role in Canada’s health care system [1]. Before the onset of the pandemic, 1.2% of all primary care visits in Canada occurred virtually [2]. By contrast, between January 2021 and March 2022, there was a significant uptake of virtual care use in primary care, with 38% of all family physician appointments in Canada being conducted virtually [3]. Similar trends are also observed globally. In the United States, the proportion of primary care physicians using virtual care increased from 5% before the pandemic to 46% during the pandemic [4,5]. In addition, economic evaluations of virtual care suggest that virtual care may be more cost-effective in some circumstances, reducing the cost per episode of care and the cost to attend the appointment (eg, travel and parking costs) compared to in-person care [6]. These cost savings and conveniences for patients contribute to their positive perceptions about using virtual care. By contrast, some studies have found that neither patients nor providers perceive the quality of virtual visits to be better than that of in-person visits [7-10]. In particular, the rapid shift in care delivery without care redesign has raised concerns about appropriateness, effectiveness, and equity [3]. Furthermore, as health systems return to prepandemic visit volumes, there are concerns that these new care modalities could increase workload, leading to increased burnout and eventually reduced staff resource capacity [11].

    A broad range of stakeholders have suggested that patients should be the focal point of decision-making and that virtual care should be built into streamlined workflows that cover all aspects of primary care, with meaningful incentives to drive system impact [12]. However, there is little empirical evidence to support putting these principles into practice. Reviews to date looking at outcomes related to virtual primary care have shown mixed or uncertain outcomes, with minimal guidance to drive care decisions [13]. Nevertheless, strong continued interest from patients suggests that virtual care can provide benefits in supporting quality primary care [13]. Studies have suggested that high-quality, sustainable models for primary virtual care require mechanisms to support triage and shared decision-making on the use of different modalities in clinical practice [12,14]. Consensus guidelines have also suggested that the use of virtual care in primary care should be based on multiple factors, including clinical appropriateness, patient preferences, and equity [15,16]. Primary care involves many functions, such as triaging incoming requests, diagnosing acute conditions, managing chronic conditions, providing counseling, and supporting rehabilitation (among others). Despite the ongoing use of virtual care by many providers, questions remain about which primary care functions are best suited to this mode of care.

    This paper is based on an evidence summary developed by the Program in Evidence-Based Care (PEBC) at McMaster University at the request of the Population Health and Value-Based Health Systems portfolio of Ontario Health (a government agency in Canada) as one of the inputs into a guidance document, “Clinically Appropriate Use of Virtual Care in Primary Care” [16]. This paper focuses on a subset of the results of this broader review to explore various primary care use cases for virtual care.

    Objectives

    The main objective of this review was to identify and summarize clinical studies of virtual care use in primary care. Of particular interest were studies indicating the circumstances when synchronous virtual care (primarily videoconference or telephone interactions) was likely to be equivalent, superior, or inferior to in-person care to inform decisions about appropriate modes of interaction with patients. Rather than make definitive statements on the benefits or harms of virtual care or the value of virtual-only primary care, we have organized the findings in ways that highlight potential benefits across a range of primary care functions to indicate which functions of primary care may be most suitable for virtual care. We have also suggested ways of conducting and reviewing future studies.


    Literature Search and Screening

    The literature search strategy and screening were performed according to systematic review methodology. The review protocol was developed by the coauthors and approved at the PEBC and by the sponsor (Population Health and Value-Based Health Systems, Ontario Health) before the commencement of the review; a post hoc decision was made to analyze and present the results as a scoping review rather than as a systematic review. A scoping review includes a predefined protocol and systematic approach to literature searches, but instead of focusing on the rigor of included studies, it reviews the literature to identify or map the state of knowledge and gaps and the research conducted, as well as identify further research needs [17-19]. This scoping review follows the guidelines formulated by Arksey and O’Malley [17] and aligns with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) statement [20]. The PRISMA checklist was also used to support reporting (refer to Multimedia Appendix 1) Research team members, using an inductive process, grouped the results into different categories, representing distinct use cases in primary care. While a formal assessment of the strength or quality of evidence was not conducted for each study—an aspect that differentiates a scoping review from a systematic review—characteristics such as study design (eg, randomized controlled trial [RCT] and prospective or retrospective comparative study), sample size, and type of comparison were extracted. In interpreting and discussing the results, we considered factors such as study size, trial design, consistency of results, and whether the studies addressed very narrow, specific issues or broader topics.

    Definitions

    The following subsections provide definitions and explanations of the key terms used throughout this paper.

    Virtual Care

    The term virtual care was defined as synchronous remote interaction between patients and clinicians to replace all or a portion of face-to-face (in-person) interactions. Care is considered synchronous when the patient and clinician are both present at the same time, and there is 2-way communication without delays in response (ie, in real time). It can include both video and telephone interactions. By contrast, asynchronous communication does not take place in real time. Asynchronous communication was included only if it was used as part of synchronous communication.

    Primary Care

    Primary care was defined as “the first point of contact between a patient and the health care system and includes illness prevention, health promotion, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation and counseling” [21]. It included care by family or general practice physicians and nurse practitioners, general practice pediatricians and geriatricians, midwives, psychologists, psychotherapists, social workers, pharmacists, and physiotherapists. Care provided by dentists, psychiatrists, or medical specialists normally seen only by referral or in a hospital setting was excluded. The definition encompassed a variety of health care providers to reflect the broadest range of staff typically found in a multidisciplinary primary care team.

    Triage

    Triage refers to the initial decision process within primary care practice upon first patient contact, resulting in the allocation of patients to either in-person or virtual family practice appointments or, in some cases, to administrative assistance or other types of care. Articles categorized under triage included those that discuss signposting—a strategy designed to direct patients to the right provider at the right time and the right place at the first point of contact with primary care [22]. As the first point of contact for many patients, triage is often considered a core function of primary care.

    Research Question

    To explore the effectiveness of virtual care in primary care settings, this study addresses the following research question:

    When using virtual modalities to seek or deliver primary care, are there differences in the outcomes of interest (either in general or for specific medical conditions or purposes of appointments) between

    • synchronous virtual care by telephone or video compared to exclusive in-person care;
    • synchronous virtual care by telephone or video plus asynchronous care (SMS text or secure messaging and email) compared to exclusive in-person care?

    Outcomes of Interest

    Outcomes of interest from a patient perspective included equity and accessibility (race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, urban or rural or remote residence, age, gender, computer literacy, and mobility), availability of appointments (time, location, and wait time to get an appointment), and on-time appointments. Outcomes relevant to multiple stakeholders—patients, care providers, and health systems—included disease stability, improvement or deterioration, complications, or death; satisfactory resolution of the reason for visit; subsequent in-person visit to primary care practitioner because virtual care was not appropriate for assessment or treatment; referral to specialists, emergency department use, or hospital admissions; rates of blood tests, clinical laboratory tests, and diagnostic imaging; prescription of antibiotics or other medications; overall health of patients of primary practice team; and continuity of care.

    Search Strategy

    Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Emcare, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases using the Ovid platform were searched from 2014 to November 24, 2021, using terms related to the concepts of virtual care and primary care (refer to Multimedia Appendix 2 [6,23-240] for the full search strategy). Due to time constraints for the project, a pragmatic decision was made to begin the database search in 2014. Therefore, publications before 2014 were not screened and only included in the literature review if cited elsewhere. Websites that the PEBC routinely consults to identify guidelines and reviews were also searched from 2015 to March 2022 (Multimedia Appendix 2); we did not search the websites of health care organizations devoted to primary care or specific diseases. Articles cited in other publications were included, regardless of publication year, if they met the other inclusion criteria.

    Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria and Screening of Primary Studies

    The inclusion and exclusion criteria are outlined in Textbox 1. Articles were screened based on these criteria, which included categories such as article type, language, care provided, intervention, mode of delivery, and sample size.

    A post hoc decision was made to include noncomparative studies that did not initially meet the inclusion criteria, but only if they were categorized as relating to triage. This adjustment was made because triage is a core component of first-contact care provided by primary care practitioners.

    A review of the titles and abstracts of the primary literature, followed by data extraction for studies meeting the specified criteria, was conducted by GGF, a professional health research methodologist at the PEBC at McMaster University. The coauthors were consulted in cases of uncertainty. An independent audit of the extracted data was conducted by Jilian Sing (refer to the Acknowledgments section). Discrepancies were noted and addressed.

    Textbox 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

    Inclusion criteria

    • Study type: randomized controlled trial; other comparative studies (virtual vs in-person care)
    • Language: abstract or full text in English
    • Care provided: primary care study (refer to the definition of primary care in the Definitions subsection); care provided in a continuous primary care practice or a clinic that offered both walk-in and virtual care
    • Intervention: virtual care provided by the same clinician or primary care team responsible for in-person care
    • Mode of care delivery: synchronous virtual care (telephone or video), which replaced in-person care, including replacing of a subset of in-person appointments
    • Sample size: sample size ≥30 (this is often considered sufficient for the central limit theorem to hold true, enabling the detection of differences between 2 study groups) [241]

    Exclusion criteria

    • Article type: trial registries or other study or review protocols without published results; editorials or commentaries; noncomparative surveys or questionnaires about patient or clinician experience; case studies; case series without a comparison group; conference abstracts
    • Language: not English
    • Care provided: study investigated the role of education, materials, lifestyle adaptation, exercise, diet, and so on, and the main study comparison was not virtual versus in-person delivery of these interventions; replacement of in-person care provided by 1 professional or treatment team or unit with virtual or in-person care provided by a different professional or team
    • Intervention: study related to virtual-only practices (eg, “walk-in” telephone clinics or hotlines); app or remote patient monitoring;
    • Mode of care delivery: SMS Text, email, or other asynchronous interventions, unless as a supplement to synchronous virtual care components
    • Sample size: sample size <30

    Systematic Reviews

    Publications described as being systematic reviews or meta-analyses by their authors (primarily in the title or abstract) were included if they reported on primary studies meeting the inclusion criteria (Textbox 1). Reviews were also considered to be systematic reviews if the authors reported the databases searched, search strategy, and inclusion and exclusion criteria; the results section included a list of the reviewed studies along with extracted data; and the review was not otherwise classified by the authors. Systematic reviews on virtual care that passed initial screening but predominantly included studies not meeting the inclusion criteria were excluded; these reviews were used only to identify additional primary studies not found in the database search. Only reviews published in English were considered, with no restrictions placed on the publication date of individual studies.


    Overview

    The database search identified 14,916 citations. In addition, 26 studies were identified through website searches, and 69 studies were found from the reference lists of other publications (Figure 1). The included studies were categorized into primary care functions, including triaging of incoming requests, diagnosis of a range of conditions through general primary care, rehabilitation, and counseling. A breakdown of the 170 included studies is presented in Table 1. Data for each study have been extracted and are reported in the tables in Multimedia Appendix 2. Primary studies on triage (24 publications representing 14 studies) are summarized in Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [23-46], and systematic reviews on triage are summarized in Table S2 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [47,48]. As the number of studies addressing specific types of virtual care was very limited, we decided not to subdivide results further by this category.

    For studies on virtual care other than counseling, there were 64 publications representing 62 primary studies and 19 publications representing 18 systematic reviews (Tables S3-S13 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [6,49-130]). These have been subdivided by the categories listed in Table 1 and consisted of 11 RCTs and 18 possibly prospective nonrandomized trials; the rest were retrospective studies that generally used chart review or registry data. Only a few of the studies used multivariate analysis to control for possibly confounding factors. Table S3 [49-68] and Table S4 [6,69-73] in Multimedia Appendix 2 summarize studies and systematic reviews, respectively, in general primary care. Table S5 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [74-82] summarizes studies conducted during COVID-19–related restrictions; Table S6 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [83-90] and Table S7 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [91,92] summarize studies and systematic reviews of minor infections, respectively; and Table S8 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [93-96] summarizes studies of COVID-19 diagnosis and management. Table S9 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [97-106] and Table S10 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [107,108] summarize studies and reviews of virtual care in chronic disease management, respectively, while Table S11 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [109-113] reports on the use of virtual care in medical abortion. Clinical studies and systematic reviews in rehabilitation are covered in Table S12 in Multimedia Appendix 1 [114-121] and Table S13 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [107,122-130], respectively.

    Primary counseling studies (102 publications representing 66 studies) are summarized in Table S14 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [131-232], while systematic reviews on counseling (n=8) are reported in Table S15 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [233-240]. The number of studies on counseling was slightly more than the number of other studies combined. Most of the counseling studies (50/65, 77%) were RCTs, providing stronger and higher-quality evidence on this topic.

    ‎
    Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram showing the number of studies identified, screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the final analysis. *Studies were excluded for the following reasons: did not meet our definition of primary care or virtual care (3134/11,026, 28.42%); an additional intervention was being studied (2076/11,026, 18.83%); not full publications of completed studies (protocols, trial registrations, or conference abstracts; 2060/11,026, 18.68%); no comparison group for the outcomes of interest (1318/11,026, 11.95%); focused on the education of clinicians or interprofessional consultation (864/11,026, 7.84%); asynchronous interventions or not involving patient-clinician contact (821/11,026, 7.44%); case studies or <30 patients per group (362/11,026, 3.28%); letters, editorials, or commentary (195/11,026, 1.77%); virtual reality (142/11,026, 1.29%); and other (54/11,026, 0.49%).
    Table 1. Breakdown of included studies by primary care function.
    Reason for consultationStudies, n (%)

    		Primary studies (n=142)Systematic reviews (n=28)Total (n=170)
    Triage14 (9.9)2 (7.1)16 (9.4)
    Medical assessment and treatment54 (38)9 (32.1)63 (37.1)

    		General primary care19 (35.2)5 (55.6)24 (38.1)

    		Primary care during COVID-19–related restrictions9 (16.7)0 (0)9 (14.3)

    		Minor infections8 (14.8)2 (22.2)10 (15.9)

    		COVID-19 management4 (7.4)0 (0)4 (6.3)

    		Chronic disease management9 (16.7)2 (22.2)11 (17.5)

    		Medical abortion5 (3.2)0 (0)5 (7.9)
    Rehabilitation8 (5.6)9 (32.1)17 (10)
    Counseling66 (46.5)8 (28.6)74 (43.5)

    Triage

    Overview

    The 14 primary studies involving triage (Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [23-46]) used various designs and often did not allow a direct comparison of virtual versus in-person care. Of these 14 studies, 10 (71%) were conducted in the United Kingdom, while 1 (7%) study each was conducted in Canada, Israel, and the Netherlands, 2 studies were conducted in Denmark. The 2 systematic reviews—1 (50%) on telephone triage [47] and 1 (50%) on remote triage [48]—are summarized in Table S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1.

    Telephone Triage

    The most common practice involved telephone triage by a nurse or other office staff and the assignment of patients to telephone consultation if appropriate and if the patient did not object. Both patient and disease characteristics determined the modality of care. Of the 16 studies on triage, only 2 (13%) were of this design [42,44]; most reports of this type were excluded because there was generally no comparison group. A variation used by 3 (19%) of the 16 studies was a telephone-first approach, where a general practitioner (GP) spoke by telephone with all patients (except those with administrative queries) and either addressed the issue during the call or scheduled an in-person visit [24-29,39]. Of the 16 studies, 2 (13%) involved triage by GPs in Denmark [43,46]. Of these 2 studies, 1 (50%) found that approximately 40% of the calls resulted in face-to-face consultation [43], while 1 (50%) reported medication prescription rates [46]. In 2 (13%) of the 16 studies, patients accessed the medical office using a web-based form, and patients with nonadministrative concerns were allocated to a GP who decided on the mode of contact [30,31,45].

    The only RCT was the ESTEEM trial, and 7 (44%) of the 16 publications on triage covered various aspects of this trial [32-38]. Conducted in England, this trial, which used a combination of the aforementioned approaches, may serve as the most significant source of insights into triage. Patients (n=15,394) requesting same-day appointments were randomized to triage by a nurse, triage by a GP, or usual care. Estimated overall contact durations (triage+subsequent contacts on the same day) were 10.3 minutes for GP triage, 14.8 minutes for nurse triage, and 9.6 minutes for usual care. The number of deaths, emergency hospital admissions, and accident and emergency department attendances were not different [36]. Triage by a nurse practitioner resulted in fewer in-person visits than triage by practice nurses (odds ratio 0.19, 95% CI 0.07-0.49); nurse practitioners were more likely to definitively manage patients within the triage consultation [33].

    Signposting

    Another study from the United Kingdom [41] used signposting in 2 practices to reduce GP telephone workload; only patients for whom a physician visit was judged essential were given a telephone appointment. The remaining callers were referred to allied health professionals, alternative services, nonmedical staff, or self-help [41]. Approximately 40% to 60% of telephone appointments were eliminated. The proportion of essential consultations taking place at the 2 practices increased from 28.6% and 27.3% at baseline to 82.6% and 71.4%, respectively.

    Emergency Assessment

    A total of 4 (25%) out of 16 studies on triaging explored the use of virtual care to assist in triaging and managing emergency calls within health systems. Of the 16 studies on triaging, 1 (6%) looked at adding GP support to emergency calls, either in person or by telephone [40]. The study found that 8.1% of all calls to emergency services could be triaged to ambulance personnel plus GP support. Of these patients, 78% were not transported to hospital, although a transfer was more often avoided if the patient was assessed in person by the GP. The remaining study, which was conducted in British Columbia reported experience using HealthLink BC Emergency iDoctor-in-assistance [23]. It looked at patients who called an 811 nurse care navigation service. Callers who were triaged to seek care within 24 hours were referred to a physician by videoconferencing. Of the callers directed to videoconferencing with HealthLink BC Emergency iDoctor-in-assistance physicians, 33.8% were advised to attempt home treatment, 38.3% to contact a primary care physician within 1 week, 15% to attend an emergency department immediately, and 7.1% to contact their primary health care provider right away.

    Medical Assessment and Treatment

    General Primary Care

    A total of 24 (38%) of the 63 studies on medical assessment and treatment were on general primary care. These studies in general primary care are summarized in Table S3 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [49-68] and systematic reviews in Table S4 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [6,69-73]. Of the 19 primary studies classified as general primary care, 15 (79%) involved general practice contacts for all or several reasons [49-58,60-65], while 1 (5%) reviewed those with acute deterioration within 3 days of a primary care visit [59] and found a slightly higher rate of self-referral to emergency services after telephone consultations compared to in-person visits.

    Of the 15 studies involving general practice contacts for all or several reasons, 1 (7%) focused on the 11 most common illnesses managed via telehealth: sinusitis, upper respiratory infection, urinary tract infection, conjunctivitis, bronchitis, pharyngitis, influenza, cough, dermatitis, digestive symptoms (nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea), and ear pain [65]. This large retrospective study used insurance company claims and focused on the treatment of acute non-urgent conditions. It found that follow-up rates for both virtual and in-person care were similar, suggesting comparable clinical resolution of these issues through virtual modalities, although antibiotic use was higher and laboratory testing lower for the virtual care group [65].

    Of the 2 RCTs that looked at a broad range of virtual primary care issues, 1 (50%) crossover study involved evaluations of patients by 2 physicians [49,50]: patients were randomized to either 1 virtual and 1 in-person assessment the same day or 2 in-person assessments. Follow-up for chronic diseases such as hypertension, elevated cholesterol level, and diabetes and consultations for acute diseases such as upper respiratory illness or sinusitis and musculoskeletal complaints were the most common. The diagnostic agreements between the physicians were 84% between face-to-face and virtual visits and 80% between the 2 face-to-face visits. This study was among the few that directly compared the reliability of diagnosis for common conditions via in-person or virtual care.

    The other RCT randomized patients to either a face-to-face appointment on that day or a callback that morning by a physician who either offered advice or arranged an in-person visit [51]. Telephone consultations were shorter (6.7 vs 8.2 min; P=.002) but resulted in slightly more follow-up consultations within 2 weeks (0.6 vs 0.4 consultations; P=.01), thus offsetting the time savings. Blood pressure was more frequently measured in person (13.3% vs 6.6%), but there were no significant differences in patient perceptions or other secondary outcomes.

    Of the 24 studies on general primary care, 1 (4%) [67] compared video to telephone communication in emergency paramedicine response and found that video enhanced clinical evaluation 85% of the time; the odds ratio for emergency transport was 0.80 (95% CI 0.62-1.03).

    Of the 9 systematic reviews on medical assessment and treatment, 5 (56%) were on virtual care in general without specifying any diseases or conditions [6,69-73]. The reviews by Totten et al [71-73] for the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [71-73] concluded that telehealth consultations are effective in providing services or improving outcomes, although evidence is stronger for some applications. The reviews found evidence of effectiveness for counseling and the management of chronic conditions. However, overall impact, including cost-effectiveness, varied significantly based on how virtual care was integrated into the larger health service delivery ecosystem.

    Primary Care During COVID-19–Related Restrictions

    Of the 63 studies on medical assessment and treatment, 9 (14%) reported the use of virtual care due to COVID-19–related restrictions and are summarized in Table S5 in Multimedia Appendix 1 [74-82]. Of these 9 studies, 1 (11%) found that there was a rapid increase in the use of virtual care—from 31% in April 2019 to 90% in April 2020. Of the visits conducted virtually, 89% were by telephone and 1% by video [80]. Another study found that 71% of the video visits included visual observation–dependent findings that could not be assessed using a telephone; however, common barriers to using video visits were the lack of appropriate equipment and patient preferences [74]. Among the studies looking at primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic, there were variable results on the impact of age on the use of video visits: the study by Eberly et al [75] found that older individuals were less likely to use video visits, whereas Schenker et al [76] found that age was a significant positive predictor of having video visits.

    Minor Infections

    Of the 63 studies on medical assessment and treatment, 10 (16%) discussed antibiotic prescription (primary studies: n=8, 80%; Table S6 in Multimedia Appendix 1 [83-90]; systematic reviews: n=2, 20%; Table S7 in Multimedia Appendix 1 [91,92]). The 2 reviews did not have sufficient evidence to draw strong conclusions about the impact of virtual care on antibiotic prescribing but noted variable effects by condition, with higher rates for some conditions and lower rates for others. Of the 8 primary studies, 5 (62%) retrospective studies evaluated antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections [83,85-88], while 1 (12%) evaluated antibiotic prescribing for urinary symptoms or infections [84]; in addition, 4 (50%) studies found similar or lower antibiotic prescribing rates with virtual compared to in-person care, while 1 (12%) reported higher antibiotic prescribing rates for telemedicine than in-person visits. This varied by condition within the same health care organization, with a chart review finding lower rates of antibiotic prescribing for sinusitis by SMS text and telephone than face-to-face visits and similar rates for urinary tract infections across all 3 modes [83,84]. By contrast, a review of claims data with matched populations showed higher rates of prescribing for acute respiratory infections for direct-to-consumer telemedicine versus urgent care or care provided by the patient’s usual primary care provider [86]. A similar pattern was found in a study comparing retail health clinics with urgent care and primary care providers [65].

    Some of the other general studies [55,63,65] also noted antibiotic prescribing as one of the outcomes. 1 of the 10 studies on minor infections (10%) compared the outcomes of patient-selected modality with the same provider, finding higher rates of antibiotic prescribing for in-person visits (10.6% for video vs 9.7% for telephone vs 13.5% for in-person visits) [55]. Of the 10 studies, 2 (20%) evaluated and found higher antibiotic prescribing rates with telephone consultations for patients with conjunctivitis, a condition that usually requires visual assessment [89,90].

    COVID-19 Management

    Of the 4 studies that reported on the assessment of patients with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 infection (Table S8 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [93-96]), 3 (75%) compared remote assessment (by telephone, video, or unspecified) with in-person care. Some studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic used antibiotic prescribing as one of the outcomes. Of these 4 studies, 1 (25%) [94] found that in-person visits involved more testing for influenza and higher antibiotic prescribing rates.

    Chronic Disease Management

    Of the 63 studies focused on medical assessment and treatment, 11 (18%) focused on chronic disease management (primary studies: n=9, 82%; Table S9 in Multimedia Appendix 1 [97-106]; systematic reviews: n=2, 18%; Table S10 in Multimedia Appendix 1 [107,108]). Of the 9 primary studies, 3 (33%) RCTs were conducted in patients with asthma [97-99], and all found higher rates of follow-up appointments in the telephone groups; 2 (22%) retrospective studies found similar diabetes control using either telephone [100] or videoconferencing [101] compared to face-to-face or usual care; and, by contrast, 1 (11%) retrospective study examining the use of telehealth by community health care workers to support Hispanic patients with low-income status with uncontrolled diabetes (defined by glycated hemoglobin level ≥9%) reported that patients were much less likely to achieve glycemic control with telephone visits alone compared to either exclusively in-person visits or a mix of in-person and virtual visits [102]. However, 1 in-person visit plus ≥1 telephone visit was worse (longer time to diabetes control) than 1 in-person visit alone [102], suggesting that adjustment for the confounders was not adequate.

    Medical Abortion

    Of the 63 studies on medical assessment and treatment, 5 (8%) explored the use of virtual care in medical abortion assessment or follow-up (Table S11 in Multimedia Appendix 1 [109-113]). These studies found no difference in successful abortion rates or adverse events, reported similar satisfaction, and suggested that providing care by telephone improved access compared to in-person care.

    Rehabilitation

    Rehabilitation studies (17/63, 27%) included those focusing on physiotherapy and cardiac rehabilitation. Of the 17 studies, 8 (47%) were primary studies (Table S12 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [114-121]), and 9 (53%) were systematic reviews (Table S13 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [107,122-130]). Specifically, of the 8 primary studies, 2 (25%) involved cardiac rehabilitation. The noninferiority RCT compared remotely monitored telerehabilitation to center-based programs and found similar benefits remote noninferior in terms of improvement in maximal oxygen consumption and health state [114]. The quasi-experimental study compared home-based videoconference rehabilitation to in-hospital rehabilitation; there was similar improvement in the 6-minute walk test, and the authors concluded that video rehabilitation was feasible [115].

    Of the 8 primary studies, 2 RCTs (25%) [116,117] and 1 (12%) retrospective study [118] found that telerehabilitation after total knee or total hip and knee arthroplasty was noninferior or comparable to traditional therapy. Studies on movement assessment in children [119] and physiotherapy assessment [121] found 92% and 83% agreement between video and in-person assessment, respectively; it is unclear whether this is sufficient. A study on physical activity coaching [120] found no significant differences between control (no intervention), in-person, and telephone intervention.

    Counseling Studies

    Of the 8 systematic reviews on counseling (Table S15 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [233-240]), 3 (37%) focused on psychotherapy [233,234,236]; 1 (12%) explored interventions targeting smoking, nutrition, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and obesity [235]; 1 (12%) each focused on depression [237], posttraumatic stress disorder [238], and suicide [239]; and 1 (12%) investigated traumatic stress during a pandemic [240]. Overall, these reviews concluded that virtual care is an established medium for delivering counseling, with evidence suggesting equivalence to in-person care in many areas of counseling.

    Most of the counseling studies (50/74, 68%; Table S14 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [131-232]) were RCTs. Of the 50 RCTs, 19 (38%) were designed as noninferiority studies. Many studies compared counseling by either telephone or videoconferencing to the same counseling provided in person (face-to-face). Of the 74 counseling studies, 3 (4%) [177,191-193] used real-time SMS text or chat conversations (all other studies involving SMS text-based communication were asynchronous and had been excluded). Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was used in 18 (24%) of the 74 studies for treating depression, anxiety, pain, insomnia, eating disorders such as bulimia nervosa, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Components of CBT may be present in some other studies that were described as behavioral studies, although they were not explicitly labeled as CBT. The overall evidence indicates that outcomes for telephone and video CBT are similar or noninferior to those for face-to-face CBT, although some differences for specific populations were noted. Other commonly used counseling types were problem-solving therapy, behavioral activation therapy, behavioral treatment interventions, prolonged exposure therapy, and cognitive processing therapy, with the latter 2 names used especially for posttraumatic stress disorder. For lifestyle-type interventions for weight loss, smoking cessation, and alcohol use, the type of counseling was less likely to fit within the traditional psychotherapy categories. While evidence for CBT is the greatest, the overall evidence suggests a role for telephone or video counseling in many other areas.


    Principal Findings

    This scoping review synthesized studies that compared in-person and virtual care in primary care, with a mix of studies conducted before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The studies were categorized into primary care functions, including triaging of incoming patient requests, medical assessment and treatment (including general primary care, minor infections, COVID-19 management, chronic disease management, and medical abortion), rehabilitation, and counseling. The review showed strong evidence that virtual care is equivalent to in-person care for counseling and comparable for some types of rehabilitation. The results suggest that virtual triaging is clinically appropriate and may lead to fewer in-person visits, especially when conducted by a physician or a nurse practitioner. However, for other primary care functions, outcomes from the included studies varied. Several studies demonstrated that many general primary care issues could be resolved virtually without the need for in-person follow-up, but only a few looked at diagnostic accuracy. A study that focused on diagnostic agreement between modalities for common primary care conditions found strong alignment [49,50]. Studies on chronic disease management observed variability in their benefit in using virtual care. Studies comparing appropriate antibiotic prescription between virtual and in-person care found variable impact depending on the clinical condition, whether patients chose a modality or were randomized to one, and the clinical context. A few of the studies measured the impact on emergency department visits or hospitalizations and found no difference, but they did not adjust for the type or severity of the illness [53,55]. Overall, the variation in impact may be a result of the relative effectiveness of the modality for a given condition or use case, but in some of the studies the differences may be driven by how the modality is selected, the practice context, and health care provider incentives within a health care organization.

    The evidence for the overall experience and value of virtual care is evolving, but our review suggests some advantages for patients and unclear impacts on provider workload and system costs. This aligns with previous reviews that have found uncertain outcomes for virtual primary care as a whole [6,13]. In our review, most patients reported a similar overall experience between virtual and in-person interactions; however, certain benefits of virtual care were noted, including in terms of cost, travel time, convenience, waiting time, and access to more specialized care [39,42,69,70]. Therapeutic alliance was similar between in-person and virtual counseling in the studies reviewed. This contrasts with an earlier systematic review of virtual care in cancer, where some clinicians reported that they found it more difficult to comfort patients during vulnerable times, found virtual care more stressful, and had concerns about therapeutic alliance [242].

    The included studies did not assess the impact on continuity of care or health equity, both of which are key components of primary care and patient experience. Other studies that aim to explore continuity of care after a primary care visit only do so by examining primary care as a whole; for example, the study by Reed et al [243] found a slightly higher percentage of in-person return visits and emergency department visits after video or telephone visits compared to in-person primary care visits, but the authors did not examine the differences based on the type of primary care function. Given that continuity of care is a defining characteristic of primary care and has been shown to be instrumental in driving primary care’s positive impact on equity and quality of care, future studies should explore the impact of virtual care use on different primary care functions in the context of its impact on continuity of care [244,245]. In addition, the impact of virtual care on provider workload and system costs was less clear in our review. Telephone visits tended to be shorter than in-person interactions, but it was unclear how the addition of virtual care affected overall workloads. An initial telephone-based clinical triage by nonphysicians resulted in a higher proportion of visits being deemed essential by primary care physicians, suggesting that triage reduced low-value appointments with a physician [48]. Having said that, although the overall workload was not addressed, other studies in the literature highlight the value of virtual triage to physicians, notably that it can improve a clinician’s experience by streamlining patient-clinician communication and could help clinicians better manage their time by reducing their administrative workload [246].

    To our knowledge, this is one of the first comprehensive reviews to examine the appropriateness of virtual care in terms of key functions of primary care. Studies examining virtual care use in primary care tend to examine primary care as a whole; for example, the study by Reed et al [243] found that 50% of primary care visits used telemedicine (19% by video and 31% by telephone); however, the impact on these numbers based on primary care function was not studied. Similarly, previous reviews have also focused on examining virtual care use more broadly through categories such as cost and health care use. However, given the shift in practice since the COVID-19 pandemic, it is now more important to understand how and when in the clinical process virtual care should be used [6,13]. In addition, these reviews only included publications from 2020 onward and did not include RCTs, which are a focus of our review. Our review shows that there is significant variability in evidence across different clinical use cases in primary care, making it difficult to provide broad conclusions about the appropriateness of virtual primary care for specific conditions. Instead, our work provides evidence that the impact and outcomes of virtual modalities in primary care should be examined according to the various interaction points along a patient’s journey; for example, there is strong evidence for equivalence between in-person and virtual care for counseling, and thus counseling could be more readily integrated into sustainable, high-quality primary care workflows. By contrast, the use of virtual care for situations that are likely to result in antibiotic prescribing requires further study to understand whether it is indeed equivalent to in-person care. Our review suggests that virtual triage can play a role in supporting primary care workflows, but more research is required to determine the best implementation model. A rapid review by Barnabe et al [247] highlighted some implications for health care organizations to consider before implementing virtual triage. These include ensuring that the platforms are locally based; that they are flexible, responsive, and tailored to regional circumstances; and that implementation is carried out, keeping partnerships and collaborations in mind [247]. These results contrast with those of other reviews on the use of virtual modalities in primary care, which analyzed clinical appropriateness and outcomes across all use cases and were generally unable to make strong recommendations to guide clinical care [15]. Several authors have suggested that a more nuanced approach, one that looks at different uses of primary care, might ultimately provide more insight into driving decisions around patient care and system planning [6,248,249].

    Virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic has expanded to cover a wide range of conditions, and our review suggests that there is still limited evidence to broadly define the optimal mode of interaction (in-person, video, telephone, or asynchronous contact); however, the evidence does provide some guidance. Our review suggests that virtual care is likely at least as good as in-person care for a wide range of primary care issues and should be offered as part of routine practice. Overall, for any given visit, the choice of modality remains a question of clinical judgment and shared decision-making between a patient and their care team. Patient factors, including access to technology, comfort with virtual visits, and maintaining a strong therapeutic relationship, must be considered when deciding the best modality for a given interaction [250]. Virtual care should be embedded in larger service models that allow for easy escalation to in-person follow-up when required. Enabling virtual triage can provide clinics with certain advantages, including improving overall access, better prioritization for the most appropriate modality, and determining whether any information should be provided in advance of the visit. Furthermore, providing counseling, self-management support, education, and ongoing monitoring virtually also offers advantages over regular in-person appointments, including improved convenience and similar outcomes for many patient populations. Virtual care could also be offered to support chronic disease management but may not work well for all patients. Options such as providing smartphones, tablet devices, or computers and limited telephone or internet service were used in some of the studies for individuals with limited technology accessibility [139,152-154,167,195]. However, health organizations and systems would benefit from continued investment in understanding how to better integrate and optimize virtual care to achieve the quintuple aim of improving patient experience, improving population health, improving clinician well-being, reducing health care costs, and advancing health equity [251], using human-centered methods such as co-design, service design, and participatory research or other frameworks [252]. Now that the practice of virtual care is so widespread, ongoing research can help in understanding how it can be leveraged to improve access and quality of care [248].

    Limitations

    This review has several limitations. First, it was restricted to studies comparing virtual care to in-person care instead of care (regardless of delivery method) to an objective standard. Therefore, it is applicable only to clinical areas in which there is established in-person care for evaluation and treatment. While many of the included studies were designed to measure the noninferiority of virtual care to in-person care, in-person treatment should not necessarily be the gold standard, especially for counseling studies where effectiveness is often based on a validated tool to measure disease, symptom intensity, or patient-reported outcomes. Second, this is a scoping review rather than a systematic review; therefore, we did not evaluate the methodological quality of the studies or determine which studies might provide more reliable results. In addition, we did not include gray literature in our search to ensure the reliability of the evidence underpinning the recommendations provided in the paper. Having said that, although we supplemented our search using trusted websites, it is possible that the exclusion of gray literature resulted in underrepresented perspectives from policy makers and community organizations that are not captured in academic publications. This could mean that insights from the practical applications of real-world data could have been missed. Furthermore, articles were only screened by a single reviewer, which could have introduced bias in the results if personal biases impacted the interpretation of the literature. Although these limitations were mitigated through an audit conducted by another member of the team, the likelihood of errors is increased when only 1 reviewer is involved. Third, the study contexts varied substantially. Most were cross-sectional studies focused on the initial consultation or ongoing chronic disease management and did not assess the impact on continuity of care, a key component of primary care. Finally, given the time frame for the database search, it is possible that new literature has become available that contributes additional evidence to this topic. Nonetheless, the study demonstrates a novel approach to organizing the literature on virtual care, moving from the question of whether virtual care is as effective as in-person care for a given health problem to thinking about how virtual care supports the core functions of primary care. It argues for a different way of conducting studies in the future and provides a framework for organizing this research. Much of the included literature covers the period during the COVID-19 pandemic, when most ambulatory care was virtual in many jurisdictions. This context is not as broadly applicable to the current state of care. However, we believe that our findings still provide valuable insights into how virtual care can be leveraged in primary care and can suggest appropriate ways of structuring future studies to better understand when and how voice, video, and SMS text-based interactions are best used in clinical care.

    Conclusions

    This scoping review found no consistent differences in the appropriateness of care or patient outcomes between virtual and in-person care across the included studies. Virtual care is perceived as equivalent to in-person care for many common uses, despite some variation by condition. The overall impact of virtual care will likely depend on whether it is used for triage, diagnosis, treatment, or counseling and whether patients or providers determine the choice of modality. Moreover, we found that the overall value of virtual care for the health system, including potential cost savings, remains unclear. Our findings highlight that although the rates of virtual care use may decrease as concerns about COVID-19 infection lessen, for functions such as triage, counseling, and rehabilitation, virtual care may remain the norm. Further studies, incorporating options for patient and provider choice, are needed to determine the optimal use of virtual care from a resource and outcome perspective. This comprehensive review is one of the first that aims to understand how virtual care can be leveraged in the various components of routine primary care functions. Given the recent changes in practice, this evidence base will continue to grow, and timely reviews will be needed to keep up with the literature. These modalities are no longer just a temporary measure to get through the pandemic and now need to be adapted to fit a new set of patient and provider workflows to demonstrate positive impacts on experience, outcomes, and costs of care. Future reviews should focus on when to use virtual modes of communication in a patient’s primary care journey.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors would like to thank Population Health and Value-Based Health Systems, Ontario Health, for funding this study. The funder played no part in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; the writing of the report; or the decision to submit the paper for publication. The authors also thank Jilian Sing for screening and summarizing reviews and for supporting the data audit.

    Data Availability

    Data sharing is not applicable to this paper as no datasets were generated or analyzed during this study.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 99 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Search strategy and data extraction tables.

    DOC File , 528 KB
    1. Bhatia RS, Chu C, Pang A, Tadrous M, Stamenova V, Cram P. Virtual care use before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a repeated cross-sectional study. CMAJ Open. Feb 17, 2021;9(1):E107-E114. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Glazier RH, Green ME, Wu FC, Frymire E, Kopp A, Kiran T. Shifts in office and virtual primary care during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada. CMAJ. Feb 08, 2021;193(6):E200-E210. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Canadian Institute for Health Information. The expansion of virtual care in canada: New data and information. Ottawa, ON. CIHI; 2023.
    4. Callaghan T, McCord C, Washburn D, Goidel K, Schmit C, Nuzhath T, et al. The changing nature of telehealth use by primary care physicians in the United States. J Prim Care Community Health. Jul 06, 2022;13:21501319221110418. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Shaver J. The state of telehealth before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Prim Care. Dec 2022;49(4):517-530. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Hui D, Dolcine B, Loshak H. Approaches to evaluations of virtual care in primary care. Can J Health Technol. Jan 2022;2(1). [CrossRef]
    7. Thiyagarajan A, Grant C, Griffiths F, Atherton H. Exploring patients' and clinicians' experiences of video consultations in primary care: a systematic scoping review. BJGP Open. Mar 17, 2020;4(1):bjgpopen20X101020. [CrossRef]
    8. Chan S, O'Riordan A, Appireddy R. Exploring the determinants and experiences of senior stroke patients with virtual care. Can J Neurol Sci. Jan 27, 2021;48(1):87-93. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Appireddy R, Khan S, Leaver C, Martin C, Jin A, Durafourt BA, et al. Home virtual visits for outpatient follow-up stroke care: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. Oct 07, 2019;21(10):e13734. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Donelan K, Barreto EA, Sossong S, Michael C, Estrada JJ, Cohen AB, et al. Patient and clinician experiences with telehealth for patient follow-up care. Am J Manag Care. Jan 2019;25(1):40-44. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    11. Shachak A, Alkureishi MA. Virtual care: a 'Zoombie' apocalypse? J Am Med Inform Assoc. Nov 01, 2020;27(11):1813-1815. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Shaw J, Jamieson T, Agarwal P, Griffin B, Wong I, Bhatia RS. Virtual care policy recommendations for patient-centred primary care: findings of a consensus policy dialogue using a nominal group technique. J Telemed Telecare. Oct 2018;24(9):608-615. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Lachance CC, Severn M, Kim J. Evidence base for virtual primary care. Can J Health Technol. May 30, 2023;3(5). [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    14. Girdhari R, Krueger P, Wang R, Meaney C, Domb S, Larsen D, et al. Electronic communication between family physicians and patients: findings from a multisite survey of academic family physicians in Ontario. Can Fam Physician. Jan 22, 2021;67(1):39-46. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Nayakarathna R, Neilson H, MacDougall D, Cowling T. Virtual care use in primary care or specialty care settings. Can J Health Technol. Aug 18, 2022;2(8). [CrossRef]
    16. Clinically appropriate use of virtual care in primary care : guidance reference document. Ontario Health. Nov 1, 2022. URL: https:/​/www.​ontariohealth.ca/​sites/​ontariohealth/​files/​2022-11/​ClinicallyAppropriateUseVirtualCarePrimaryCare.​pdf [accessed 2023-11-02]
    17. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. Feb 2005;8(1):19-32. [CrossRef]
    18. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. Sep 20, 2010;5:69. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. Sep 2015;13(3):141-146. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. Oct 02, 2018;169(7):467-473. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Primary care payment models in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Health. URL: https://www.ontario.ca/page/primary-care-payment-models-ontario [accessed 2024-11-01]
    22. Brunton L, Tazzyman A, Ferguson J, Hodgson D, Nelson PA. The challenges of integrating signposting into general practice: qualitative stakeholder perspectives on care navigation and social prescribing in primary care. BMC Prim Care. Apr 01, 2022;23(1):66. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Ho K, Lauscher HN, Stewart K, Abu-Laban RB, Scheuermeyer F, Grafstein E, et al. Integration of virtual physician visits into a provincial 8-1-1 health information telephone service during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive study of HealthLink BC Emergency iDoctor-in-assistance (HEiDi). CMAJ Open. Jun 15, 2021;9(2):E635-E641. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Newbould J, Exley J, Ball S, Corbett J, Pitchforth E, Roland M. GPs’ and practice staff’s views of a telephone first approach to demand management: a qualitative study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. Apr 23, 2019;69(682):e321-e328. [CrossRef]
    25. Newbould J, Ball S, Abel G, Barclay M, Brown T, Corbett J, et al. A ‘telephone first’ approach to demand management in English general practice: a multimethod evaluation. Health Serv Deliv Res. May 2019;7(17):1-158. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Ball SL, Newbould J, Corbett J, Exley J, Pitchforth E, Roland M. Qualitative study of patient views on a 'telephone-first' approach in general practice in England: speaking to the GP by telephone before making face-to-face appointments. BMJ Open. Dec 31, 2018;8(12):e026197. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Newbould J, Abel G, Ball S, Corbett J, Elliott M, Exley J, et al. Evaluation of telephone first approach to demand management in English general practice: observational study. BMJ. Sep 27, 2017;358:j4197. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Miller D, Loftus AM, O'Boyle PJ, McCloskey M, O'Kelly J, Mace D, et al. Impact of a telephone-first consultation system in general practice. Postgrad Med J. Nov 2019;95(1129):590-595. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Jiwa M, Mathers N, Campbell M. The effect of GP telephone triage on numbers seeking same-day appointments. Br J Gen Pract. May 2002;52(478):390-391. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    30. Edwards HB, Marques E, Hollingworth W, Horwood J, Farr M, Bernard E, et al. Use of a primary care online consultation system, by whom, when and why: evaluation of a pilot observational study in 36 general practices in South West England. BMJ Open. Nov 22, 2017;7(11):e016901. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Farr M, Banks J, Edwards HB, Northstone K, Bernard E, Salisbury C, et al. Implementing online consultations in primary care: a mixed-method evaluation extending normalisation process theory through service co-production. BMJ Open. Mar 19, 2018;8(3):e019966. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Holt TA, Fletcher E, Warren F, Richards S, Salisbury C, Calitri R, et al. Telephone triage systems in UK general practice: analysis of consultation duration during the index day in a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract. Feb 25, 2016;66(644):e214-e218. [CrossRef]
    33. Varley A, Warren FC, Richards SH, Calitri R, Chaplin K, Fletcher E, et al. The effect of nurses' preparedness and nurse practitioner status on triage call management in primary care: a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from the ESTEEM trial. Int J Nurs Stud. Jun 2016;58:12-20. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Warren FC, Calitri R, Fletcher E, Varley A, Holt TA, Lattimer V, et al. Exploring demographic and lifestyle associations with patient experience following telephone triage by a primary care doctor or nurse: secondary analyses from a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Qual Saf. Sep 18, 2015;24(9):572-582. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Calitri R, Warren FC, Wheeler B, Chaplin K, Fletcher E, Murdoch J, et al. Distance from practice moderates the relationship between patient management involving nurse telephone triage consulting and patient satisfaction with care. Health Place. Jul 2015;34:92-96. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Campbell JL, Fletcher E, Britten N, Green C, Holt T, Lattimer V, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telephone triage for managing same-day consultation requests in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing general practitioner-led and nurse-led management systems with usual care (the ESTEEM trial). Health Technol Assess. Feb 2015;19(13):1-212, vii. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Campbell JL, Fletcher E, Britten N, Green C, Holt TA, Lattimer V, et al. Telephone triage for management of same-day consultation requests in general practice (the ESTEEM trial): a cluster-randomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis. The Lancet. Nov 2014;384(9957):1859-1868. [CrossRef]
    38. Murdoch J, Varley A, Fletcher E, Britten N, Price L, Calitri R, et al. Implementing telephone triage in general practice: a process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Fam Pract. Apr 10, 2015;16(1):47. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Lawless M, Wright E, Davidson J. A collaborative approach to improving patient access in general practice: impact of three different pilot schemes in 12 general practices in Greenwich. London J Prim Care (Abingdon). Jun 10, 2016;8(4):56-65. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Villarreal M, Leach J, Ngianga-Bakwin K, Dale J. Can a partnership between general practitioners and ambulance services reduce conveyance to emergency care? Emerg Med J. Jul 18, 2017;34(7):459-465. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Siddiqui F, Sidhu B, Tahir MA. Using 'active signposting' to streamline general practitioner workload in two London-based practices. BMJ Open Qual. Oct 21, 2017;6(2):e000146. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Elliott M, Jones S, Johnson C, Wallace C. What are the benefits of nurse-led triage in primary care? Prim Health Care. 2020. [CrossRef]
    43. Huibers L, Moth G, Carlsen AH, Christensen MB, Vedsted P. Telephone triage by GPs in out-of-hours primary care in Denmark: a prospective observational study of efficiency and relevance. Br J Gen Pract. Jul 18, 2016;66(650):e667-e673. [CrossRef]
    44. Jansen T, Hek K, Schellevis FG, Kunst AE, Verheij RA. Income-related differences in out-of-hours primary care telephone triage using national registration data. Emerg Med J. Jun 14, 2021;38(6):460-466. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Eccles A, Hopper M, Turk A, Atherton H. Patient use of an online triage platform: a mixed-methods retrospective exploration in UK primary care. Br J Gen Pract. Mar 25, 2019;69(682):e336-e344. [CrossRef]
    46. Christensen MB, Nørøxe KB, Moth G, Vedsted P, Huibers L. Drug prescriptions in Danish out-of-hours primary care: a 1-yearpopulation-based study. Scand J Prim Health Care. Dec 02, 2016;34(4):453-458. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Lake R, Georgiou A, Li J, Li L, Byrne M, Robinson M, et al. The quality, safety and governance of telephone triage and advice services - an overview of evidence from systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. Aug 30, 2017;17(1):614. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Rushton S, Boggan JC, Lewinski AA, Gordon AM, Shoup JP, Van Voorhees E, et al. Effectiveness of Remote Triage: A Systematic Review. Washington, DC. Department of Veterans Affairs; 2019.
    49. Dixon RF, Stahl JE. A randomized trial of virtual visits in a general medicine practice. J Telemed Telecare. 2009;15(3):115-117. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Stahl JE, Dixon RF. Acceptability and willingness to pay for primary care videoconferencing: a randomized controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare. Apr 12, 2010;16(3):147-151. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Sutcliffe L. Telephone consultations to manage requests for same-day appointments: a randomised controlled trial in two practices. Prim Health Care. Jun 2004;14(5):8. [CrossRef]
    52. McKinstry B, Hammersley V, Burton C, Pinnock H, Elton R, Dowell J, et al. The quality, safety and content of telephone and face-to-face consultations: a comparative study. Qual Saf Health Care. Aug 29, 2010;19(4):298-303. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Gujral K, Scott JY, Ambady L, Dismuke-Greer CE, Jacobs J, Chow A, et al. A primary care telehealth pilot program to improve access: associations with patients' health care utilization and costs. Telemed J E Health. May 01, 2022;28(5):643-653. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Llorian ER, Mason G. Healthcare utilization and telemedicine: an evaluation using linked administrative data from Manitoba. J Telemed Telecare. Jan 17, 2021;29(4):282-290. [CrossRef]
    55. Reed M, Huang J, Graetz I, Muelly E, Millman A, Lee C. Treatment and follow-up care associated with patient-scheduled primary care telemedicine and in-person visits in a large integrated health system. JAMA Netw Open. Nov 01, 2021;4(11):e2132793. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Graetz I, Huang J, Muelly E, Gopalan A, Lee C, Reed ME. Patient choice of telemedicine increases timeliness of primary care visits. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2020;2020:502-503. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    57. Reed ME, Huang J, Graetz I, Lee C, Muelly E, Kennedy C, et al. Patient characteristics associated with choosing a telemedicine visit vs office visit with the same primary care clinicians. JAMA Netw Open. Jun 01, 2020;3(6):e205873. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Ryskina KL, Shultz K, Zhou Y, Lautenbach G, Brown RT. Older adults' access to primary care: gender, racial, and ethnic disparities in telemedicine. J Am Geriatr Soc. Oct 2021;69(10):2732-2740. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Cecil E, Bottle A, Majeed A, Aylin P. Factors associated with potentially missed acute deterioration in primary care: cohort study of UK general practices. Br J Gen Pract. Feb 01, 2021;71(708):e547-e554. [CrossRef]
    60. Gonzalez F, Cimadevila B, Garcia-Comesaña J, Cerqueiro S, Andion E, Prado J, et al. Telephone consultation in primary care: a retrospective two-year observational analysis of a public healthcare system. J Health Org Manag. Mar 26, 2018;32(2):321-337. [CrossRef]
    61. Ross AA, Yap TL, Nest JV, Martin K, Edie AH. Increasing primary care access close to home for residents of remote communities in Northern Alberta. Healthc Q. Oct 31, 2016;19(3):61-66. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Bernstein P, Ko KJ, Israni J, Cronin AO, Kurliand MM, Shi JM, et al. Urgent and non-emergent telehealth care for seniors: findings from a multi-site impact study. J Telemed Telecare. Aug 2023;29(7):566-575. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Lovell T, Albritton J, Dalto J, Ledward C, Daines W. Virtual vs traditional care settings for low-acuity urgent conditions: an economic analysis of cost and utilization using claims data. J Telemed Telecare. Jul 25, 2019;27(1):59-65. [CrossRef]
    64. Ohta M, Ohira Y, Uehara T, Keira K, Noda K, Hirukawa M, et al. How accurate are first visit diagnoses using synchronous video visits with physicians? Telemed J E Health. Feb 2017;23(2):119-129. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Gordon AS, Adamson WC, DeVries AR. Virtual visits for acute, nonurgent care: a claims analysis of episode-level utilization. J Med Internet Res. Feb 17, 2017;19(2):e35. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Grech CK, Laux MA, Burrows HL, Macy ML, Pomeranz ES. Pediatric emergency department resource utilization among children with primary care clinic contact in the preceding 2 days: a cross-sectional study. J Pediatr. Sep 2017;188:245-51.e2. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Abrashkin KA, Washko JD, Li T, Berkowitz J, Poku A, Zhang J, et al. Video or telephone? A natural experiment on the added value of video communication in community paramedic responses. Ann Emerg Med. Jan 2021;77(1):103-109. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. Al Mazrouei N, Ibrahim RM, Al Meslamani AZ, Abdel-Qader DH, Mohamed Ibrahim O. Virtual pharmacist interventions on abuse of over-the-counter medications during COVID-19 versus traditional pharmacist interventions. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). May 2021;61(3):331-339. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Carrillo de Albornoz S, Sia KL, Harris A. The effectiveness of teleconsultations in primary care: systematic review. Fam Pract. Jan 19, 2022;39(1):168-182. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Gray C, Mason J, Loshak H. An overview of direct-to-patient virtual visits in Canada. Can J Health Technol. Jun 2021;1(6). [CrossRef]
    71. Totten AM, Hansen RN, Wagner J, Stillman L, Ivlev I, Davis-O’Reilly C, et al. Telehealth for Acute and Chronic Care Consultations [Internet]. Rockville, MD. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2019.
    72. Totten AM, McDonagh MS, Wagner JH. The evidence base for telehealth: reassurance in the face of rapid expansion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2020. URL: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/telehealth-expansion/white-paper [accessed 2022-01-31]
    73. Totten AM, Womack DM, Eden KB, McDonagh M, Griffin JC, Grusing S, et al. Telehealth: mapping the evidence for patient outcomes from systematic reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2016. URL: https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/32090/ [accessed 2022-01-31]
    74. Schifeling CH, Shanbhag P, Johnson A, Atwater RC, Koljack C, Parnes BL, et al. Disparities in video and telephone visits among older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-sectional analysis. JMIR Aging. Nov 10, 2020;3(2):e23176. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. Eberly LA, Kallan MJ, Julien HM, Haynes N, Khatana SA, Nathan AS, et al. Patient characteristics associated with telemedicine access for primary and specialty ambulatory care during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. Dec 01, 2020;3(12):e2031640. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Schenker RB, Laguna MC, Odisho AY, Okumura MJ, Burnett H. Are we reaching everyone? A cross-sectional study of telehealth inequity in the COVID-19 pandemic in an urban academic pediatric primary care clinic. Clin Pediatr (Phila). Jan 2022;61(1):26-33. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    77. Lopez Segui F, Hernandez Guillamet G, Pifarré Arolas H, Marin-Gomez FX, Ruiz Comellas A, Ramirez Morros AM, et al. Characterization and identification of variations in types of primary care visits before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Catalonia: big data analysis study. J Med Internet Res. Sep 14, 2021;23(9):e29622. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    78. van der Velden AW, Bax EA, Bongard E, Munck Aabenhus R, Anastasaki M, Anthierens S, et al. Primary care for patients with respiratory tract infection before and early on in the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study in 16 European countries. BMJ Open. Jul 29, 2021;11(7):e049257. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    79. Brown CL, Montez K, Amati JB, Simeonsson K, Townsend JD, Orr CJ, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on pediatric primary care visits at four academic institutions in the Carolinas. Int J Environ Res Public Health. May 27, 2021;18(11):5734. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    80. Murphy M, Scott LJ, Salisbury C, Turner A, Scott A, Denholm R, et al. Implementation of remote consulting in UK primary care following the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods longitudinal study. Br J Gen Pract. Jan 17, 2021;71(704):e166-e177. [CrossRef]
    81. Sigurdsson EL, Blondal AB, Jonsson JS, Tomasdottir MO, Hrafnkelsson H, Linnet K, et al. How primary healthcare in Iceland swiftly changed its strategy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Open. Dec 07, 2020;10(12):e043151. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    82. Mohamed Ibrahim O, Ibrahim RM, Abdel-Qader DH, Al Meslamani AZ, Al Mazrouei N. Evaluation of telepharmacy services in light of COVID-19. Telemed J E Health. Jun 01, 2021;27(6):649-656. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    83. Penza KS, Murray MA, Myers JF, Furst JW, Pecina JL. Management of acute sinusitis via e-visit. Telemed J E Health. May 10, 2021;27(5):532-536. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    84. Murray MA, Penza KS, Myers JF, Furst JW, Pecina JL. Comparison of eVisit management of urinary symptoms and urinary tract infections with standard care. Telemed J E Health. May 01, 2020;26(5):639-644. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    85. Shi Z, Mehrotra A, Gidengil CA, Poon SJ, Uscher-Pines L, Ray KN. Quality of care for acute respiratory infections during direct-to-consumer telemedicine visits for adults. Health Aff (Millwood). Dec 2018;37(12):2014-2023. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    86. Ray KN, Shi Z, Gidengil CA, Poon SJ, Uscher-Pines L, Mehrotra A. Antibiotic prescribing during pediatric direct-to-consumer telemedicine visits. Pediatrics. May 08, 2019;143(5):e20182491. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    87. Ray KN, Martin JM, Wolfson D, Schweiberger K, Schoemer P, Cepullio C, et al. Antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections during telemedicine visits within a pediatric primary care network. Acad Pediatr. Sep 2021;21(7):1239-1243. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    88. Ewen E, Willey VJ, Kolm P, McGhan WF, Drees M. Antibiotic prescribing by telephone in primary care. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. Feb 31, 2015;24(2):113-120. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    89. Frost HM, Sebastian T, Durfee J, Jenkins TC. Ophthalmic antibiotic use for acute infectious conjunctivitis in children. J AAPOS. Dec 2021;25(6):350.e1-350.e7. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    90. Penza KS, Murray MA, Myers JF, Maxson J, Furst JW, Pecina JL. Treating pediatric conjunctivitis without an exam: an evaluation of outcomes and antibiotic usage. J Telemed Telecare. Aug 28, 2018;26(1-2):73-78. [CrossRef]
    91. Bakhit M, Baillie E, Krzyzaniak N, van Driel M, Clark J, Glasziou P, et al. Antibiotic prescribing for acute infections in synchronous telehealth consultations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJGP Open. Sep 08, 2021;5(6):BJGPO.2021.0106. [CrossRef]
    92. Han SM, Greenfield G, Majeed A, Hayhoe B. Impact of remote consultations on antibiotic prescribing in primary health care: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. Nov 09, 2020;22(11):e23482. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    93. Phillips JC, Lord RW, Davis SW, Burton AA, Kirk JK. Comparing telehealth to traditional office visits for patient management in the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study in a respiratory assessment clinic. J Telemed Telecare. Feb 01, 2021;29(5):374-381. [CrossRef]
    94. Tarn DM, Hintz C, Mendez-Hernandez E, Sawlani SP, Bholat MA. Using virtual visits to care for primary care patients with COVID-19 symptoms. J Am Board Fam Med. Feb 23, 2021;34(Supplement):S147-S151. [CrossRef]
    95. Riese A, Kelly JM, Chu TC, Heinly A, Kamath S, Golova N, et al. Visits for possible COVID-19 in a pediatric primary care practice early in the pandemic. R I Med J (2013). Aug 02, 2021;104(6):43-48. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    96. Irving G, Lawson D, Tinsley A, Parr H, Whittaker C, Jones H, et al. Evaluation of a 'drop box' doorstep assessment service to aid remote assessments for COVID-19 in general practice. BMJ Open Qual. Mar 29, 2021;10(1):e001081. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    97. Gruffydd-Jones K, Hollinghurst S, Ward S, Taylor G. Targeted routine asthma care in general practice using telephone triage. Br J Gen Pract. Dec 2005;55(521):918-923. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    98. Pinnock H, Adlem L, Gaskin S, Harris J, Snellgrove C, Sheikh A. Accessibility, clinical effectiveness, and practice costs of providing a telephone option for routine asthma reviews: phase IV controlled implementation study. Br J Gen Pract. Sep 2007;57(542):714-722. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    99. Pinnock H, Bawden R, Proctor S, Wolfe S, Scullion J, Price D, et al. Accessibility, acceptability, and effectiveness in primary care of routine telephone review of asthma: pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. BMJ. Mar 01, 2003;326(7387):477-479. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    100. Al Harthi T, Anwar H, Al Lawati A, Al Shuriqi F, Al Rashdi F, Al Mahrouqi A, et al. The impact of Covid-19 on diabetes care in Muscat governorate: a retrospective cohort study in primary care. J Prim Care Community Health. Oct 30, 2021;12:21501327211051930. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    101. Lu AD, Gunzburger E, Glorioso TJ, Smith WB2, Kenney RR, Whooley MA, et al. Impact of longitudinal virtual primary care on diabetes quality of care. J Gen Intern Med. Sep 2021;36(9):2585-2592. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    102. Turner BJ, Liang Y, Ramachandran A, Poursani R. Telephone or visit-based community health worker care management for uncontrolled diabetes mellitus: a longitudinal study. J Community Health. Dec 29, 2020;45(6):1123-1131. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    103. Wickström H, Öien RF, Midlöv P, Anderberg P, Fagerström C. Pain and analgesics in patients with hard-to-heal ulcers: using telemedicine or standard consultations. J Wound Care. Jun 01, 2021;30(Sup6):S23-S32. [CrossRef]
    104. Wickström HL, Öien RF, Fagerström C, Anderberg P, Jakobsson U, Midlöv PJ. Comparing video consultation with inperson assessment for Swedish patients with hard-to-heal ulcers: registry-based studies of healing time and of waiting time. BMJ Open. Feb 15, 2018;8(2):e017623. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    105. Eibl JK, Gauthier G, Pellegrini D, Daiter J, Varenbut M, Hogenbirk JC, et al. The effectiveness of telemedicine-delivered opioid agonist therapy in a supervised clinical setting. Drug Alcohol Depend. Jul 01, 2017;176:133-138. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    106. Rivera J, Shcherbakova N, Vala C, Capoccia K. Community pharmacists' interventions and documentation during medication therapy management encounters delivered face-to-face versus via telephone: the devil is in the details. Res Social Adm Pharm. Oct 2020;16(10):1447-1451. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    107. Ho C, Argáez C. Telehealth-Delivered Opioid Agonist Therapy for the Treatment of Adults with Opioid Use Disorder: Review of Clinical Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness, and Guidelines [Internet]. Ottawa, ON. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2018.
    108. Barth J, Nickel F, Kolominsky-Rabas PL. Diagnosis of cognitive decline and dementia in rural areas - a scoping review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. Mar 2018;33(3):459-474. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    109. Grossman D, Grindlay K. Safety of medical abortion provided through telemedicine compared with in person. Obstet Gynecol. Oct 2017;130(4):778-782. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    110. Grossman DA, Grindlay K, Buchacker T, Potter JE, Schmertmann CP. Changes in service delivery patterns after introduction of telemedicine provision of medical abortion in Iowa. Am J Public Health. Jan 2013;103(1):73-78. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    111. Grossman D, Grindlay K, Buchacker T, Lane K, Blanchard K. Effectiveness and acceptability of medical abortion provided through telemedicine. Obstet Gynecol. Aug 2011;118(2 Pt 1):296-303. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    112. Grossman D, Baum SE, Andjelic D, Tatum C, Torres G, Fuentes L, et al. A harm-reduction model of abortion counseling about misoprostol use in Peru with telephone and in-person follow-up: a cohort study. PLoS One. Jan 10, 2018;13(1):e0189195. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    113. Cameron ST, Glasier A, Dewart H, Johnstone A, Burnside A. Telephone follow-up and self-performed urine pregnancy testing after early medical abortion: a service evaluation. Contraception. Jul 2012;86(1):67-73. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    114. Maddison R, Rawstorn JC, Stewart RA, Benatar J, Whittaker R, Rolleston A, et al. Effects and costs of real-time cardiac telerehabilitation: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Heart. Jan 27, 2019;105(2):122-129. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    115. Scalvini S, Zanelli E, Comini L, Dalla Tomba M, Troise G, Febo O, et al. Home-based versus in-hospital cardiac rehabilitation after cardiac surgery: a nonrandomized controlled study. Phys Ther. Aug 2013;93(8):1073-1083. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    116. Moffet H, Tousignant M, Nadeau S, Mérette C, Boissy P, Corriveau H, et al. In-home telerehabilitation compared with face-to-face rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Jul 15, 2015;97(14):1129-1141. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    117. Piqueras M, Marco E, Coll M, Escalada F, Ballester A, Cinca C, et al. Effectiveness of an interactive virtual telerehabilitation system in patients after total knee arthoplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Med. Apr 2013;45(4):392-396. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    118. Kuether J, Moore A, Kahan J, Martucci J, Messina T, Perreault R, et al. Telerehabilitation for total hip and knee arthroplasty patients: a pilot series with high patient satisfaction. HSS J. Oct 21, 2019;15(3):221-225. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    119. Nicola K, Waugh J, Charles E, Russell T. The feasibility and concurrent validity of performing the Movement Assessment Battery for Children - 2nd Edition via telerehabilitation technology. Res Dev Disabil. Jun 2018;77:40-48. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    120. Ewald B, Stacey F, Johnson N, Plotnikoff RC, Holliday E, Brown W, et al. Physical activity coaching by Australian Exercise Physiologists is cost effective for patients referred from general practice. Aust N Z J Public Health. Feb 2018;42(1):12-15. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    121. Cottrell MA, O'Leary SP, Swete-Kelly P, Elwell B, Hess S, Litchfield MA, et al. Agreement between telehealth and in-person assessment of patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions presenting to an advanced-practice physiotherapy screening clinic. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. Dec 2018;38:99-105. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    122. Inglis SC, Clark RA, Dierckx R, Prieto-Merino D, Cleland JGF. Structured telephone support or non-invasive telemonitoring for patients with heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Oct 31, 2015;2015(10):CD007228. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    123. Anderson L, Sharp GA, Norton RJ, Dalal H, Dean SG, Jolly K, et al. Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Jun 30, 2017;6(6):CD007130. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    124. Jin K, Khonsari S, Gallagher R, Gallagher P, Clark AM, Freedman B, et al. Telehealth interventions for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. Apr 2019;18(4):260-271. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    125. Cottrell MA, Galea OA, O'Leary SP, Hill AJ, Russell TG. Real-time telerehabilitation for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions is effective and comparable to standard practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil. May 02, 2017;31(5):625-638. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    126. Jiang S, Xiang J, Gao X, Guo K, Liu B. The comparison of telerehabilitation and face-to-face rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare. Dec 27, 2016;24(4):257-262. [CrossRef]
    127. Shukla H, Nair SR, Thakker D. Role of telerehabilitation in patients following total knee arthroplasty: evidence from a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare. Jul 09, 2016;23(2):339-346. [CrossRef]
    128. Rawstorn JC, Gant N, Direito A, Beckmann C, Maddison R. Telehealth exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. Aug 01, 2016;102(15):1183-1192. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    129. Mani S, Sharma S, Omar B, Paungmali A, Joseph L. Validity and reliability of internet-based physiotherapy assessment for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare. Mar 31, 2016;23(3):379-391. [CrossRef]
    130. Telehealth for Speech and Language Pathology: A Review of Clinical Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness, and Guidelines [Internet]. Ottawa, ON. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2015.
    131. Alegría M, Ludman E, Kafali EN, Lapatin S, Vila D, Shrout PE, et al. Effectiveness of the Engagement and Counseling for Latinos (ECLA) intervention in low-income Latinos. Med Care. Nov 2014;52(11):989-997. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    132. Alcántara C, Li X, Wang Y, Canino G, Alegría M. Treatment moderators and effectiveness of Engagement and Counseling for Latinos intervention on worry reduction in a low-income primary care sample. J Consult Clin Psychol. Nov 2016;84(11):1016-1022. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    133. Kirkness CJ, Cain KC, Becker KJ, Tirschwell DL, Buzaitis AM, Weisman PL, et al. Randomized trial of telephone versus in-person delivery of a brief psychosocial intervention in post-stroke depression. BMC Res Notes. Oct 10, 2017;10(1):500. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    134. Byun E, Becker KJ, Kohen R, Kirkness CJ, Mitchell PH. Brief psychosocial intervention to address poststroke depression may also benefit fatigue and sleep-wake disturbance. Rehabil Nurs. 2021;46(4):222-231. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    135. Mohr DC, Ho J, Duffecy J, Reifler D, Sokol L, Burns MN, et al. Effect of telephone-administered vs face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy on adherence to therapy and depression outcomes among primary care patients: a randomized trial. JAMA. Jun 06, 2012;307(21):2278-2285. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    136. Kalapatapu RK, Ho J, Cai X, Vinogradov S, Batki SL, Mohr DC. Cognitive-behavioral therapy in depressed primary care patients with co-occurring problematic alcohol use: effect of telephone-administered vs. face-to-face treatment-a secondary analysis. J Psychoactive Drugs. May 06, 2014;46(2):85-92. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    137. Stiles-Shields C, Kwasny MJ, Cai X, Mohr DC. Therapeutic alliance in face-to-face and telephone-administered cognitive behavioral therapy. J Consult Clin Psychol. Apr 2014;82(2):349-354. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    138. Stiles-Shields C, Corden ME, Kwasny MJ, Schueller SM, Mohr DC. Predictors of outcome for telephone and face-to-face administered cognitive behavioral therapy for depression. Psychol Med. Nov 2015;45(15):3205-3215. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    139. Choi NG, Marti CN, Bruce ML, Hegel MT, Wilson NL, Kunik ME. Six-month postintervention depression and disability outcomes of in-home telehealth problem-solving therapy for depressed, low-income homebound older adults. Depress Anxiety. Aug 05, 2014;31(8):653-661. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    140. Choi NG, Marti CN, Conwell Y. Effect of problem-solving therapy on depressed low-income homebound older adults' death/suicidal ideation and hopelessness. Suicide Life Threat Behav. Jun 12, 2016;46(3):323-336. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    141. Egede LE, Acierno R, Knapp RG, Lejuez C, Hernandez-Tejada M, Payne EH, et al. Psychotherapy for depression in older veterans via telemedicine: a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Psychiatry. Aug 2015;2(8):693-701. [CrossRef]
    142. Egede LE, Acierno R, Knapp RG, Walker RJ, Payne EH, Frueh BC. Psychotherapy for depression in older veterans via telemedicine: effect on quality of life, satisfaction, treatment credibility, and service delivery perception. J Clin Psychiatry. Dec 08, 2016;77(12):1704-1711. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    143. Egede LE, Gebregziabher M, Walker RJ, Payne EH, Acierno R, Frueh BC. Trajectory of cost overtime after psychotherapy for depression in older veterans via telemedicine. J Affect Disord. Jan 01, 2017;207:157-162. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    144. Egede LE, Dismuke CE, Walker RJ, Acierno R, Frueh BC. Cost-effectiveness of behavioral activation for depression in older adult veterans. J Clin Psychiatry. Aug 28, 2018;79(5):17m11888. [CrossRef]
    145. Egede LE, Walker RJ, Payne EH, Knapp RG, Acierno R, Frueh BC. Effect of psychotherapy for depression via home telehealth on glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes: subgroup analysis of a randomized clinical trial. J Telemed Telecare. Oct 2018;24(9):596-602. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    146. Luxton DD, Pruitt LD, Wagner A, Smolenski DJ, Jenkins-Guarnieri MA, Gahm G. Home-based telebehavioral health for U.S. military personnel and veterans with depression: a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. Nov 2016;84(11):923-934. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    147. Smolenski DJ, Pruitt LD, Vuletic S, Luxton DD, Gahm G. Unobserved heterogeneity in response to treatment for depression through videoconference. Psychiatr Rehabil J. Sep 2017;40(3):303-308. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    148. Pruitt LD, Vuletic S, Smolenski DJ, Wagner A, Luxton DD, Gahm GA. Predicting post treatment client satisfaction between behavioural activation for depression delivered either in-person or via home-based telehealth. J Telemed Telecare. Jul 05, 2018;25(8):460-467. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    149. Bouchard S, Allard M, Robillard G, Dumoulin S, Guitard T, Loranger C, et al. Videoconferencing psychotherapy for panic disorder and agoraphobia: outcome and treatment processes from a non-randomized non-inferiority trial. Front Psychol. Aug 21, 2020;11:2164. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    150. Milosevic I, Cameron DH, Milanovic M, McCabe RE, Rowa K. Face-to-face versus video teleconference group cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety and related disorders: a preliminary comparison. Can J Psychiatry. May 23, 2022;67(5):391-402. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    151. Watts S, Marchand A, Bouchard S, Gosselin P, Langlois F, Belleville G, et al. Telepsychotherapy for generalized anxiety disorder: impact on the working alliance. J Psychother Integr. Jun 2020;30(2):208-225. [CrossRef]
    152. Acierno R, Gros DF, Ruggiero KJ, Hernandez-Tejada MA, Knapp RG, Lejuez CW, et al. Behavioral activation and therapeutic exposure for posttraumatic stress disorder: a noninferiority trial of treatment delivered in person versus home-based telehealth. Depress Anxiety. May 10, 2016;33(5):415-423. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    153. Acierno R, Knapp R, Tuerk P, Gilmore AK, Lejuez C, Ruggiero K, et al. A non-inferiority trial of prolonged exposure for posttraumatic stress disorder: in person versus home-based telehealth. Behav Res Ther. Feb 2017;89:57-65. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    154. Gros DF, Allan NP, Lancaster CL, Szafranski DD, Acierno R. Predictors of treatment discontinuation during prolonged exposure for PTSD. Behav Cogn Psychother. Jul 03, 2017;46(1):35-49. [CrossRef]
    155. Acierno R, Jaffe AE, Gilmore AK, Birks A, Denier C, Muzzy W, et al. A randomized clinical trial of in-person vs. home-based telemedicine delivery of prolonged exposure for PTSD in military sexual trauma survivors. J Anxiety Disord. Oct 2021;83:102461. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    156. White CN, Kauffman BY, Acierno R. Factors contributing to veterans’ satisfaction with PTSD treatment delivered in person compared to telehealth. J Telemed Telecare. Jan 26, 2021;29(6):426-434. [CrossRef]
    157. Morland LA, Mackintosh MA, Glassman LH, Wells SY, Thorp SR, Rauch SA, et al. Home-based delivery of variable length prolonged exposure therapy: a comparison of clinical efficacy between service modalities. Depress Anxiety. Apr 24, 2020;37(4):346-355. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    158. Morland LA, Mackintosh MA, Greene CJ, Rosen CS, Chard KM, Resick P, et al. Cognitive processing therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder delivered to rural veterans via telemental health. J Clin Psychiatry. May 15, 2014;75(05):470-476. [CrossRef]
    159. Morland LA, Mackintosh MA, Rosen CS, Willis E, Resick P, Chard K, et al. Telemedicine versus in-person delivery of cognitive processing therapy for women with posttraumatic stress disorder: a randomized noninferiority trial. Depress Anxiety. Nov 03, 2015;32(11):811-820. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    160. Glassman LH, Mackintosh MA, Talkovsky A, Wells SY, Walter KH, Wickramasinghe I, et al. Quality of life following treatment for PTSD: comparison of videoconferencing and in-person modalities. J Telemed Telecare. Nov 16, 2017;25(2):123-127. [CrossRef]
    161. Liu L, Thorp SR, Moreno L, Wells SY, Glassman LH, Busch AC, et al. Videoconferencing psychotherapy for veterans with PTSD: results from a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. J Telemed Telecare. Jun 19, 2019;26(9):507-519. [CrossRef]
    162. Maieritsch KP, Smith TL, Hessinger JD, Ahearn EP, Eickhoff JC, Zhao Q. Randomized controlled equivalence trial comparing videoconference and in person delivery of cognitive processing therapy for PTSD. J Telemed Telecare. Jun 2016;22(4):238-243. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    163. Morland LA, Greene CJ, Rosen CS, Foy D, Reilly P, Shore J, et al. Telemedicine for anger management therapy in a rural population of combat veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder: a randomized noninferiority trial. J Clin Psychiatry. Jul 2010;71(7):855-863. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    164. Morland LA, Greene CJ, Grubbs K, Kloezeman K, Mackintosh MA, Rosen C, et al. Therapist adherence to manualized cognitive-behavioral therapy for anger management delivered to veterans with PTSD via videoconferencing. J Clin Psychol. Jun 25, 2011;67(6):629-638. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    165. Greene CJ, Morland LA, Macdonald A, Frueh BC, Grubbs KM, Rosen CS. How does tele-mental health affect group therapy process? Secondary analysis of a noninferiority trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. Oct 2010;78(5):746-750. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    166. Valentine LM, Donofry SD, Broman RB, Smith ER, Rauch SA, Sexton MB. Comparing PTSD treatment retention among survivors of military sexual trauma utilizing clinical video technology and in-person approaches. J Telemed Telecare. Apr 11, 2019;26(7-8):443-451. [CrossRef]
    167. Kelleher SA, Winger JG, Dorfman CS, Ingle KK, Moskovich AA, Abernethy AP, et al. A behavioral cancer pain intervention: a randomized noninferiority trial comparing in-person with videoconference delivery. Psychooncology. Aug 19, 2019;28(8):1671-1678. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    168. Check DK, Winger JG, Jones KA, Somers TJ. Predictors of response to an evidence-based behavioral cancer pain management intervention: an exploratory analysis from a clinical trial. J Pain Symptom Manage. Aug 2021;62(2):391-399. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    169. Herbert MS, Afari N, Liu L, Heppner P, Rutledge T, Williams K, et al. Telehealth versus in-person acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain: a randomized noninferiority trial. J Pain. Feb 2017;18(2):200-211. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    170. Levy RL, Langer SL, van Tilburg MA, Romano JM, Murphy TB, Walker LS, et al. Brief telephone-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy targeted to parents of children with functional abdominal pain: a randomized controlled trial. Pain. Apr 2017;158(4):618-628. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    171. Chavooshi B, Mohammadkhani P, Dolatshahee B. Telemedicine vs. in-person delivery of intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy for patients with medically unexplained pain: a 12-month randomized, controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare. Jul 09, 2016;23(1):133-141. [CrossRef]
    172. Arnedt JT, Conroy DA, Mooney A, Furgal A, Sen A, Eisenberg D. Telemedicine versus face-to-face delivery of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial. Sleep. Jan 21, 2021;44(1):zsaa136. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    173. Crow SJ, Mitchell JE, Crosby RD, Swanson SA, Wonderlich S, Lancanster K. The cost effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for bulimia nervosa delivered via telemedicine versus face-to-face. Behav Res Ther. Jun 2009;47(6):451-453. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    174. Mitchell JE, Crosby RD, Wonderlich SA, Crow S, Lancaster K, Simonich H, et al. A randomized trial comparing the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy for bulimia nervosa delivered via telemedicine versus face-to-face. Behav Res Ther. May 2008;46(5):581-592. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    175. Marrone S, Mitchell JE, Crosby R, Wonderlich S, Jollie-Trottier T. Predictors of response to cognitive behavioral treatment for bulimia nervosa delivered via telemedicine versus face-to-face. Int J Eat Disord. Apr 24, 2009;42(3):222-227. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    176. Ertelt TW, Crosby RD, Marino JM, Mitchell JE, Lancaster K, Crow SJ. Therapeutic factors affecting the cognitive behavioral treatment of bulimia nervosa via telemedicine versus face-to-face delivery. Int J Eat Disord. Dec 15, 2011;44(8):687-691. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    177. Zerwas SC, Watson HJ, Hofmeier SM, Levine MD, Hamer RM, Crosby RD, et al. CBT4BN: a randomized controlled trial of online chat and face-to-face group therapy for bulimia nervosa. Psychother Psychosom. 2017;86(1):47-53. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    178. Watson HJ, Levine MD, Zerwas SC, Hamer RM, Crosby RD, Sprecher CS, et al. Predictors of dropout in face-to-face and internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy for bulimia nervosa in a randomized controlled trial. Int J Eat Disord. May 2017;50(5):569-577. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    179. Watson HJ, McLagan N, Zerwas SC, Crosby RD, Levine MD, Runfola CD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of internet-based cognitive-behavioral treatment for bulimia nervosa: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Psychiatry. 2018;79(1):16m11314. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    180. Lindegaard Pedersen J, Pedersen PU, Damsgaard EM. Nutritional follow-up after discharge prevents readmission to hospital - a randomized clinical trial. J Nutr Health Aging. May 26, 2017;21(1):75-82. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    181. Lovell K, Cox D, Haddock G, Jones C, Raines D, Garvey R, et al. Telephone administered cognitive behaviour therapy for treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. BMJ. Oct 28, 2006;333(7574):883. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    182. Turner CM, Mataix-Cols D, Lovell K, Krebs G, Lang K, Byford S, et al. Telephone cognitive-behavioral therapy for adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. Dec 2014;53(12):1298-307.e2. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    183. Nair A, Turner C, Heyman I, Mataix-Cols D, Lovell K, Krebs G, et al. Moderators and predictors of outcomes in telephone delivered compared to face-to-face cognitive behaviour therapy for paediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder: preliminary evidence from a non-inferiority RCT. Cogn Behav Ther. Sep 17, 2019;48(5):353-368. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    184. Tie H, Krebs G, Lang K, Shearer J, Turner C, Mataix-Cols D, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of telephone cognitive-behaviour therapy for adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder. BJPsych Open. Jan 2019;5(1):e7. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    185. Watson M, White C, Lynch A, Mohammed K. Telephone-delivered individual cognitive behavioural therapy for cancer patients: an equivalence randomised trial. Psychooncology. Mar 2017;26(3):301-308. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    186. Rodrigues P, Watson M, White C, Lynch A, Mohammed K, Sagoo GS. Cost-effectiveness analysis of telephone-based cognitive behaviour therapy compared to treatment as usual CBT for cancer patients: evidence from a small, randomised controlled trial. Psychooncology. Oct 2021;30(10):1691-1698. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    187. Lleras de Frutos M, Medina JC, Vives J, Casellas-Grau A, Marzo JL, Borràs JM, et al. Video conference vs face-to-face group psychotherapy for distressed cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial. Psychooncology. Dec 07, 2020;29(12):1995-2003. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    188. Guzman D, Ann-Yi S, Bruera E, Wu J, Williams JL, Najera J, et al. Enhancing palliative care patient access to psychological counseling through outreach telehealth services. Psychooncology. Jan 10, 2020;29(1):132-138. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    189. Morgan RD, Patrick AR, Magaletta PR. Does the use of telemental health alter the treatment experience? Inmates' perceptions of telemental health versus face-to-face treatment modalities. J Consult Clin Psychol. Feb 2008;76(1):158-162. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    190. Ospina-Pinillos L, Davenport T, Iorfino F, Tickell A, Cross S, Scott EM, et al. Using new and innovative technologies to assess clinical stage in early intervention youth mental health services: evaluation study. J Med Internet Res. Sep 10, 2018;20(9):e259. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    191. Fukkink RG, Hermanns JM. Children's experiences with chat support and telephone support. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. Jun 2009;50(6):759-766. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    192. Fukkink R, Hermanns J. Counseling children at a helpline: chatting or calling? J Community Psychol. Oct 20, 2009;37(8):939-948. [CrossRef]
    193. King R, Bambling M, Reid W, Thomas I. Telephone and online counselling for young people: a naturalistic comparison of session outcome, session impact and therapeutic alliance. Couns Psychother Res. Feb 17, 2007;6(3):175-181. [CrossRef]
    194. Murphy L, Parnass P, Mitchell DL, Hallett R, Cayley P, Seagram S. Client satisfaction and outcome comparisons of online and face-to-face counselling methods. Br J Soc Work. Apr 15, 2009;39(4):627-640. [CrossRef]
    195. Laver K, Liu E, Clemson L, Davies O, Gray L, Gitlin LN, et al. Does telehealth delivery of a dyadic dementia care program provide a noninferior alternative to face-to-face delivery of the same program? A randomized, controlled trial. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. Jun 2020;28(6):673-682. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    196. Wade SL, Cassedy AE, McNally KA, Kurowski BG, Kirkwood MW, Stancin T, et al. A randomized comparative effectiveness trial of family-problem-solving treatment for adolescent brain injury: parent outcomes from the coping with head injury through problem solving (CHIPS) study. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2019;34(6):E1-E9. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    197. Corona LL, Stainbrook JA, Simcoe K, Wagner L, Fowler B, Weitlauf AS, et al. Utilization of telemedicine to support caregivers of young children with ASD and their Part C service providers: a comparison of intervention outcomes across three models of service delivery. J Neurodev Disord. Sep 15, 2021;13(1):38. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    198. Kalichman SC, Katner H, Eaton LA, Banas E, Hill M, Kalichman MO. Comparative effects of telephone versus in-office behavioral counseling to improve HIV treatment outcomes among people living with HIV in a rural setting. Transl Behav Med. Apr 07, 2021;11(3):852-862. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    199. Kalichman SC, Katner H, Eaton LA, Hill M, Ewing W, Kalichman MO. Randomized community trial comparing telephone versus clinic-based behavioral health counseling for people living with HIV in a rural setting. J Rural Health. Sep 08, 2022;38(4):728-739. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    200. Phanuphak N, Anand T, Jantarapakde J, Nitpolprasert C, Himmad K, Sungsing T, et al. What would you choose: online or offline or mixed services? Feasibility of online HIV counselling and testing among Thai men who have sex with men and transgender women and factors associated with service uptake. J Int AIDS Soc. Jul 2018;21 Suppl 5(Suppl Suppl 5):e25118. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    201. Delahanty LM, Chang Y, Levy DE, Porneala B, Dushkin A, Bissett L, et al. Design and participant characteristics of a primary care adaptation of the Look AHEAD Lifestyle Intervention for weight loss in type 2 diabetes: the REAL HEALTH-diabetes study. Contemp Clin Trials. Aug 2018;71:9-17. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    202. Delahanty LM, Levy DE, Chang Y, Porneala BC, Goldman V, McCarthy J, et al. Effectiveness of lifestyle intervention for type 2 diabetes in primary care: the REAL HEALTH-diabetes randomized clinical trial. J Gen Intern Med. Sep 21, 2020;35(9):2637-2646. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    203. Duke DC, Wagner DV, Ulrich J, Freeman KA, Harris MA. Videoconferencing for teens with diabetes: family matters. J Diabetes Sci Technol. Jul 2016;10(4):816-823. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    204. Harris MA, Freeman KA, Duke DC. Seeing is believing: using Skype to improve diabetes outcomes in youth. Diabetes Care. Aug 2015;38(8):1427-1434. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    205. Riley AR, Duke DC, Freeman KA, Hood KK, Harris MA. Depressive symptoms in a trial behavioral family systems therapy for diabetes: a post hoc analysis of change. Diabetes Care. Aug 2015;38(8):1435-1440. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    206. Nevanperä N, Keränen AM, Ukkola O, Laitinen J. Effects of group counseling transmitted through videoconferencing on changes in eating behaviors. J Nutr Educ Behav. Nov 2015;47(6):555-9.e1. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    207. Harder VS, Musau AM, Musyimi CW, Ndetei DM, Mutiso VN. A randomized clinical trial of mobile phone motivational interviewing for alcohol use problems in Kenya. Addiction. Jun 03, 2020;115(6):1050-1060. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    208. Lohr PA, Aiken AR, Forsyth T, Trussell J. Telephone or integrated contraception counselling before abortion: impact on method choice and receipt. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. Apr 03, 2018;44(2):114-121. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    209. James EL, Ewald BD, Johnson NA, Stacey FG, Brown WJ, Holliday EG, et al. Referral for expert physical activity counseling: a pragmatic RCT. Am J Prev Med. Oct 2017;53(4):490-499. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    210. Andrews M, Baker AL, Halpin SA, Lewin TJ, Richmond R, Kay-Lambkin FJ, et al. Early therapeutic alliance, treatment retention, and 12-month outcomes in a healthy lifestyles intervention for people with psychotic disorders. J Nerv Ment Dis. Dec 2016;204(12):894-902. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    211. Baker AL, Richmond R, Kay-Lambkin FJ, Filia SL, Castle D, Williams JM, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a healthy lifestyle intervention among smokers with psychotic disorders. Nicotine Tob Res. Aug 05, 2015;17(8):946-954. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    212. Baker AL, Richmond R, Kay-Lambkin FJ, Filia SL, Castle D, Williams JM, et al. Randomised controlled trial of a healthy lifestyle intervention among smokers with psychotic disorders: outcomes to 36 months. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. Mar 14, 2018;52(3):239-252. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    213. Berndt N, Bolman C, Lechner L, Max W, Mudde A, de Vries H, et al. Economic evaluation of a telephone- and face-to-face-delivered counseling intervention for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease. Eur J Health Econ. Apr 22, 2016;17(3):269-285. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    214. Byaruhanga J, Paul CL, Wiggers J, Byrnes E, Mitchell A, Lecathelinais C, et al. Connectivity of real-time video counselling versus telephone counselling for smoking cessation in rural and remote areas: an exploratory study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Apr 22, 2020;17(8):2891. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    215. Byaruhanga J, Wiggers J, Paul CL, Byrnes E, Mitchell A, Lecathelinais C, et al. Acceptability of real-time video counselling compared to other behavioural interventions for smoking cessation in rural and remote areas. Drug Alcohol Depend. Dec 01, 2020;217:108296. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    216. Byaruhanga J, Paul CL, Wiggers J, Byrnes E, Mitchell A, Lecathelinais C, et al. The short-term effectiveness of real-time video counselling on smoking cessation among residents in rural and remote areas: an interim analysis of a randomised trial. J Subst Abuse Treat. Dec 2021;131:108448. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    217. Carlson LE, Lounsberry JJ, Maciejewski O, Wright K, Collacutt V, Taenzer P. Telehealth-delivered group smoking cessation for rural and urban participants: feasibility and cessation rates. Addict Behav. Jan 2012;37(1):108-114. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    218. Nomura A, Tanigawa T, Muto T, Oga T, Fukushima Y, Kiyosue A, et al. Clinical efficacy of telemedicine compared to face-to-face clinic visits for smoking cessation: multicenter open-label randomized controlled noninferiority trial. J Med Internet Res. Apr 26, 2019;21(4):e13520. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    219. Richter KP, Shireman TI, Ellerbeck EF, Cupertino AP, Catley D, Cox LS, et al. Comparative and cost effectiveness of telemedicine versus telephone counseling for smoking cessation. J Med Internet Res. May 08, 2015;17(5):e113. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    220. Appel LJ, Clark JM, Yeh HC, Wang NY, Coughlin JW, Daumit G, et al. Comparative effectiveness of weight-loss interventions in clinical practice. N Engl J Med. Nov 24, 2011;365(21):1959-1968. [CrossRef]
    221. Dalcin AT, Jerome GJ, Fitzpatrick SL, Louis TA, Wang NY, Bennett WL, et al. Perceived helpfulness of the individual components of a behavioural weight loss program: results from the Hopkins POWER trial. Obes Sci Pract. Oct 09, 2015;1(1):23-32. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    222. Daumit GL, Janssen EM, Jerome GJ, Dalcin AT, Charleston J, Clark JM, et al. Cost of behavioral weight loss programs implemented in clinical practice: the POWER trial at Johns Hopkins. Transl Behav Med. Feb 03, 2020;10(1):103-113. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    223. Befort CA, VanWormer JJ, Desouza C, Ellerbeck EF, Gajewski B, Kimminau KS, et al. Effect of behavioral therapy with in-clinic or telephone group visits vs in-clinic individual visits on weight loss among patients with obesity in rural clinical practice: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. Jan 26, 2021;325(4):363-372. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    224. Kurz D, McCrea-Robertson S, Nelson-Brantley H, Befort C. Rural engagement in primary care for optimizing weight reduction (REPOWER): a mixed methods study of patient perceptions. Patient Educ Couns. Jul 2022;105(7):2371-2381. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    225. Fujii H, Yokoyama T, Yoshimi I, Mizushima S. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effects of health guidance with video call as compared to face-to-face health guidance. Int Med J. 2017;24(2):186.
    226. Harrigan M, Cartmel B, Loftfield E, Sanft T, Chagpar AB, Zhou Y, et al. Randomized trial comparing telephone versus in-person weight loss counseling on body composition and circulating biomarkers in women treated for breast cancer: the lifestyle, exercise, and nutrition (LEAN) study. J Clin Oncol. Mar 01, 2016;34(7):669-676. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    227. Harvey-Berino J. Changing health behavior via telecommunications technology: using interactive television to treat obesity. Behav Ther. 1998;29(3):505-519. [CrossRef]
    228. Lukenbill T, San Giovanni CB, Simpson A, Chew M, Basco W, Roberts J. Assessing anthropometric and laboratory outcomes of a paediatric telehealth weight management program. J Telemed Telecare. Feb 09, 2021;29(5):399-405. [CrossRef]
    229. Lutes LD, Dinatale E, Goodrich DE, Ronis DL, Gillon L, Kirsh S, et al. A randomized trial of a small changes approach for weight loss in veterans: design, rationale, and baseline characteristics of the ASPIRE-VA trial. Contemp Clin Trials. Jan 2013;34(1):161-172. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    230. Damschroder LJ, Lutes LD, Kirsh S, Kim HM, Gillon L, Holleman RG, et al. Small-changes obesity treatment among veterans: 12-month outcomes. Am J Prev Med. Nov 2014;47(5):541-553. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    231. Vimalananda V, Damschroder L, Janney CA, Goodrich D, Kim HM, Holleman R, et al. Weight loss among women and men in the ASPIRE-VA behavioral weight loss intervention trial. Obesity (Silver Spring). Sep 04, 2016;24(9):1884-1891. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    232. Lutes LD, Damschroder LJ, Masheb R, Kim HM, Gillon L, Holleman RG, et al. Behavioral treatment for veterans with obesity: 24-month weight outcomes from the ASPIRE-VA small changes randomized trial. J Gen Intern Med. Apr 7, 2017;32(Suppl 1):40-47. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    233. Fernandez E, Woldgabreal Y, Day A, Pham T, Gleich B, Aboujaoude E. Live psychotherapy by video versus in-person: a meta-analysis of efficacy and its relationship to types and targets of treatment. Clin Psychol Psychother. Nov 05, 2021;28(6):1535-1549. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    234. Thomas N, McDonald C, de Boer K, Brand RM, Nedeljkovic M, Seabrook L. Review of the current empirical literature on using videoconferencing to deliver individual psychotherapies to adults with mental health problems. Psychol Psychother. Sep 23, 2021;94(3):854-883. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    235. Byaruhanga J, Atorkey P, McLaughlin M, Brown A, Byrnes E, Paul C, et al. Effectiveness of individual real-time video counseling on smoking, nutrition, alcohol, physical activity, and obesity health risks: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. Sep 11, 2020;22(9):e18621. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    236. Irvine A, Drew P, Bower P, Brooks H, Gellatly J, Armitage CJ, et al. Are there interactional differences between telephone and face-to-face psychological therapy? A systematic review of comparative studies. J Affect Disord. Mar 15, 2020;265:120-131. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    237. Ho C, Severn M. e-Therapy Interventions for the Treatments of Patients with Depression: A Review of Clinical Effectiveness [Internet]. Ottawa, ON. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2018.
    238. Turgoose D, Ashwick R, Murphy D. Systematic review of lessons learned from delivering tele-therapy to veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. J Telemed Telecare. Oct 2018;24(9):575-585. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    239. Jobes DA, Crumlish JA, Evans AD. The COVID-19 pandemic and treating suicidal risk: the telepsychotherapy use of CAMS. J Psychother Integr. Jun 2020;30(2):226-237. [CrossRef]
    240. Rosen CS, Glassman LH, Morland LA. Telepsychotherapy during a pandemic: a traumatic stress perspective. J Psychother Integr. Jun 2020;30(2):174-187. [CrossRef]
    241. Mendenhall W, Beaver RJ, Beaver BM. Introduction to Probability and Statistics. Pacific Grove, CA. Brooks/Cole Publishing; 2009.
    242. Singh S, Fletcher GG, Yao X, Sussman J. Virtual care in patients with cancer: a systematic review. Curr Oncol. Sep 08, 2021;28(5):3488-3506. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    243. Reed M, Huang J, Somers M, Hsueh L, Graetz I, Millman A, et al. Telemedicine versus in-person primary care: treatment and follow-up visits. Ann Intern Med. Oct 2023;176(10):1349-1357. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    244. Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q. Oct 03, 2005;83(3):457-502. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    245. Saultz JW, Lochner J. Interpersonal continuity of care and care outcomes: a critical review. Ann Fam Med. Mar 01, 2005;3(2):159-166. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    246. Gellert GA, Rasławska-Socha J, Marcjasz N, Price T, Heyduk A, Mlodawska A, et al. The role of virtual triage in improving clinician experience and satisfaction: a narrative review. Telemed Rep. Jul 01, 2023;4(1):180-191. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    247. Barnabe J, Petrie S, Peters P. Virtual triage and teletriage in rural Canada and Australia: A rapid review. Spatial Determinants of Health Lab Ottawa. 2020. URL: https://carleton.ca/determinants/wp-content/uploads/VirtualTriage.pdf [accessed 2024-07-29]
    248. Jonnagaddala J, Godinho MA, Liaw ST. From telehealth to virtual primary care in Australia? A rapid scoping review. Int J Med Inform. Jul 2021;151:104470. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    249. Neves AL, Li E, Gupta PP, Fontana G, Darzi A. Virtual primary care in high-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: policy responses and lessons for the future. Eur J Gen Pract. Dec 25, 2021;27(1):241-247. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    250. Agarwal P, Wang R, Meaney C, Walji S, Damji A, Gill N, et al. Sociodemographic differences in patient experience with primary care during COVID-19: results from a cross-sectional survey in Ontario, Canada. BMJ Open. May 09, 2022;12(5):e056868. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    251. Nundy S, Cooper LA, Mate KS. The quintuple aim for health care improvement: a new imperative to advance health equity. JAMA. Feb 08, 2022;327(6):521-522. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    252. Segal JB, Davis S, Dukhanin V. Working framework for appropriate use of virtual care in primary care. J Am Board Fam Med. May 31, 2022;35(3):629-633. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    CBT: cognitive behavioral therapy
    GP: general practitioner
    PEBC: Program in Evidence-Based Care
    PRISMA-ScR: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews
    RCT: randomized controlled trial

    Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 06.12.23; peer-reviewed by A Lu, S Khonsari; comments to author 15.03.24; revised version received 10.08.24; accepted 05.12.24; published 14.02.25.

    Copyright

    ©Payal Agarwal, Glenn George Fletcher, Karishini Ramamoorthi, Xiaomei Yao, Onil Bhattacharyya. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 14.02.2025.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.