Опыт, накопленный пациентами в ходе видеоконференций: качественный систематический обзор.

Introduction

Video consultation (VC) enables communication through real-time visual and audio connection. 1 Information and communication technologies such as VC are believed to be an essential factor in ensuring universal health coverage, 2 and provide opportunities to overcome geographical distances and ensure access to healthcare in areas where it is lacking. 3 During the COVID-19 outbreak, VC played an important role in providing continuous access to necessary health services, while keeping patients and healthcare professionals safe. 4 , 5 A post-pandemic analysis of the use of telehealth, which includes VC, showed that between 2019 and 2023 there was a remarkable global effort to utilise telehealth. 6 The year 2020 might well be the turning point where digital technology became accepted as part of healthcare routines by the public as well as governments. 7 The effectiveness of telemedicine in healthcare has been the subject of investigation for several decades. A systematic review of reviews published in 2010 reported that 21 reviews concluded telemedicine to be effective. However, it also identified 22 reviews that found the evidence to be limited and inconsistent. This divergence underscored the need for more large-scale studies and a greater emphasis on incorporating patients’ perspectives into evaluations of telemedicine services. 8

Comparative reviews have demonstrated that both telephone and VC are as effective as face-to-face (FTF) consultations in improving clinical outcomes across primary care, 9 , 10 psychotherapy, 11 and hospital-based settings. 12 Moreover, VC has been found to outperform telephone consultations in a variety of healthcare contexts, 13 offering enhanced effectiveness at significantly lower costs than traditional care. 12 Despite the extraordinary increase in use of VC, patients still prefer FTF consultations 14 – 16 and VC with healthcare professionals that they have previously met in person. 17 – 19 Besides that, VC is still found challenging concerning emotional and complex questions 20 , 21 ; and have issues related to technology. 18 , 22

Patient involvement in healthcare can enhance the relevance, quality, safety, and effectiveness of healthcare services globally, and there is a need for qualitative studies that explore patients’ experiences in depth. 23 Patient preferences are central to the delivery of high-quality care, and a paucity of research focusing on patients’ experiences of virtual care has been identified. 24 The patient perspective contributes with recognition of the most appropriate use of VC for different patient groups and clinical conditions, and can capture potential downsides. 9 , 25 Patient experiences of VC suggest that patients are comfortable communicating through video, and that VC has become normalised 18 and is seen as a convenient tool 19 , 20 that is appreciated by patients as well as by healthcare professionals. 25 , 26 However, contradictions within patient experiences of VC suggest that this is a fragmented field of research, and that patients’ preferences should be better examined 25 in order to explore what works well for different patient groups and why. 27 Evaluation of satisfaction with VC is most often undertaken using questionnaires, 26 , 28 and several studies report patient experiences based on healthcare professionals’ observations. 25 The lack of comparable results and qualitative studies focusing on patient perspectives regarding VC highlights the need to gather existing knowledge generated by qualitative studies.

Reviews from 2019 and 2020 state that experiences, such as satisfaction, of VC have rarely been systematically reviewed using robust methodology. 14 , 26 The lack of qualitative systematic reviews on patient experiences of VCs still remains since PROSPERO, 29 an international systematic review registry, shows only two existing or ongoing reviews in this area, both focusing on a much broader field of digital healthcare solutions and telemedicine for conditions such as somatic diseases 30 and chronic disease management during COVID-19. 31

To enhance the delivery of digital health services such as VC, understanding the patient perspective is of unequivocal importance. While previous research has explored patients’ experiences of VC across various clinical specialisations, to our knowledge, no systematic review has yet examined the experiences between patients and healthcare professionals via VC without categorising participants by specific conditions or specialties. Despite the rapid expansion of research on VC in recent years, there remains a notable gap in studies that synthesise qualitative data to complement the insights derived from quantitative approaches. A systematic review focusing broadly on patient experiences of VC, investigated through qualitative methodologies, could offer critical insights for healthcare practitioners, telehealth system designers, and policymakers alike.

Aim

The aim of the study was to compile and synthesise the scientific literature on adult patients’ experiences of VC with healthcare professionals.

Methods

Search strategy

A systematic search was undertaken in PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science to find articles on patient experiences of VC in the context of healthcare. This review is reported according to the PRISMA statement guidelines, 32 in line with the ‘Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research’ (ENTREQ) statement, 33 and is registered in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO; Registration ID: CRD42022330476). The search strategy was formulated using the SPICE Framework, suitable when assessing experiences. 34 The concepts were set as follows: Setting (S) − Healthcare; Population (P) − Patients; Intervention (I) − VC; Comparison (C) − not relevant to the review question; and Evaluation (E) − Experiences. Key terms related to the SPICE concepts was identified by test searches, a hand review of reference lists from relevant studies, and searches for synonyms and related terms using the Swedish MeSH database, 35 supplemented with appropriate terminology sourced from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. 36 This approach ensured both linguistic and conceptual breadth in capturing relevant literature. As the thesaurus and subject headings used in PsycINFO differ from the more harmonised vocabularies found in Cinahl and PubMed, a separate search was conducted in PsycINFO to identify terms equivalent to those used in the search strings of the other databases. Some of the identified key terms were, telemedicine, remote consultation, mhealth, VC, audiovisual, videoconference, patient satisfaction, attitude, and perception. Further construction of the search strategy was then structured around conceptual blocks. Words categorised under the same block was combined using the Boolean operator “OR”, and blocks were combined using “AND”. The combination of the three blocks; #1 key terms related to telemedicine; #2 key terms related to VC; and #3 key terms related to patient experience, resulted in the most relevant hits and was kept for the final search. The search strategy employed a combination of controlled vocabulary terms (e.g. MeSH terms) and free-text keywords, structured using Boolean operators (AND, OR) and field-specific tags (e.g. [Mesh], [tiab], [All fields]). Truncation symbols (e.g. *) were used to capture variations of root words. Each database's specific indexing system was considered. For full details of the search strategy in the different databases, see Appendix 1, and for search strings, limitations set, and number of hits, see Appendix 2.

A significant effort was made to have a broad yet manageable search strategy. The strategy and terms were agreed upon with an information specialist.

Literature search and study characteristics

The initial search was conducted on 11 October 2021, and complemented with a second search on 29 January 2024. Duplicates were removed from the results of the initial search using the EndNote software, and from the results of the second search using Rayyan. 37 The remaining duplicates were identified and manually removed by the authors.

The authors co-operated on the process of study selection. Title, abstract and full-text screening was performed by two of the authors independently to include studies that fit the inclusion criteria ( Table 1 ). Disagreement at all stages was solved through discussions between the authors; when needed, articles were reviewed by a third author.

Quality assessment

The quality of the included studies was assessed by the authors, with two authors independently, using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. 38 During the process of quality assessment from the initial search, the authors decided to exclude studies that used mixed methods, since the reporting especially regarding the recruitment strategy, the qualitative data analysis, and result section was substandard. There was also lacking information about the different steps of the analysis; references to methods used; and citations to strengthen the results; which altogether made it impossible to assess the quality in all mixed-method studies that were evaluated. The proportion of mixed-method studies included in the quality assessment was 5.4% in the initial search, and during the second search, mixed-method studies were excluded during the title, abstract and full-text screening.

Data extraction

Data that aligned with the aim of this systematic review were extracted from the Results/Findings section of each of the studies; this included both quotations from patients, and analysis conducted by authors. To ensure a similar procedure between all the authors, all three authors extracted data from one of the studies and discussed the results to reach consensus. Data extraction was thereafter undertaken independently by the authors, and the data was imported into MAXQDA (Version: MAXQDA 2022 (Release 22.8.0)) and Excel (version 2407). The extracted data also included authors; year of publication; title; publication; country; study population; number of participants; data-collection method; data-analysis method; and research questions/aim. These are presented in Table 2 .

Data synthesis

The data were analysed using thematic synthesis, as formulated by Thomas and Harden 39 ; here, over the course of three stages, themes that reoccurred across the selected studies were identified. First, the extracted data were given a free line-by-line coding that summarised or described the text with a very low degree of interpretation, remaining close to the original findings. 39 To verify the method, all three authors independently coded one study and then discussed their results. After this, each of the remaining studies was coded by the first author. Second, similar codes were discussed by the authors, grouped into descriptive themes and kept close to the original findings. Third, a more abstract and analytical discussion between the authors was held to group, explain and describe the initial descriptive themes that emerged, forming the main analytical themes. 39

Quality appraisal

The assessment of confidence in the findings was guided by the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach, 40 and performed using the iSoQ (interactive Summary of Qualitative Findings) – tool by all three authors jointly. The confidence in the evidence was based on four key components, that together contribute to an overall assessment: methodological limitations; coherence of the review findings; adequacy of the data contributing to the review findings; and relevance of the included studies to the research question of this study (Appendix 3).

Results

The search yielded 4252 publications; following the removal of duplicate citations, 3203 were studies to be screened. Following title and abstract screening, 133 were included in the full-text screening, and 33 of these were eligible for inclusion in the quality assessment. Of these, 20 studies were assessed to be poorly described, and therefore excluded; the remaining 13 studies were included in the synthesis ( Figure 1 ).

Demographics of included studies

The 13 included studies were conducted in six countries (Canada, the USA, Norway, Denmark, Latvia and Australia), with publication dates from 2015 to 2023. Data were collected using interviews, and thematic and content analyses were used as predominant method of analysis. The number of participants ranged from 6 to 25; they were 20 to 92 years old and the only active party in the conversation during VCs with healthcare professionals due to stroke, depression, anxiety, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cancer, multiple sclerosis (MS), rehabilitation or psychotherapy.

Qualitative synthesis of findings

Thematic synthesis of adult patients’ experiences of VC with healthcare professionals identified four main themes, each with subthemes ( Table 3 ). The synthesis did not identify any diagnostic or geographic context as dominant within the themes; however, all studies consistently supported two subthemes: ‘ Less time, effort, and travel, and more accessible ’ and ‘ Challenges to the patient-healthcare professional relationship ’.

Main theme 1: Suitable for less complex issues when technical problems can be solved

The first main theme relates to patients seeing VC as saving both time and energy, if used in appropriate situations and under the right circumstances, and in line with patient's capacities and condition. A patient stated: “ Now I – to get up in the morning and make the bed and get in the shower – I’m very slow. It's at least an hour and a half before I’m ready to come down… I felt that [VCs are] a way of saving me time and effort. Physical effort .” 41 All studies noted that VC involves less time, effort and travel, and is more accessible – something that is worth a great deal to unwell patients. 41 – 53 The reason for appreciating VC as time and effort saving sometimes differs depending on the patient's condition. One patient expressed: ‘ It´s also easier when you’ve got a baby; it's better not to have to spend an hour on transportation’, 52 while another patient explained: ‘ It takes a lot of energy to travel − it is awful − that noise and people around you’. 46 Easy access also results in a sense of control, and less anxiety and stress. There are, however, divergent experiences regarding round-the-clock access to VC; this affects the coherence of the results, since some patients believe that is possible to use VC at any time, while others do not. VC means not having to make travel arrangements, and is associated with benefits such as fewer worries and more energy for rehabilitation and healing. 41 , 48 However, some feel that travel time is important for preparation before an appointment, and mention missing this during VC. 50 Others find it easier to process information without the need to drive home after a VC. 44 Some studies found that patients appreciate shorter waiting times for booking appointments with VC, but the circumstances that contribute to this are not described in detail, and therefore hold some uncertainty. 41 , 43 , 46 , 51 , 53 For some, VC is preferred because it means less waiting, for example, when receiving bad or important news. 43 Patients also feel positively about not having to sit in waiting rooms. 51 , 53

Many studies noted the idea of VCs for shorter, less complicated issues . 41 – 44 , 47 , 50 , 52 A patient stated: ‘ Going over test results with me…he's showing me the pictures. If you were in person, you’d have to try and peek around the computer…it really is a benefit, and then like 15 minutes are over, and I feel good about myself, and I can go on about my day’. 50 Some patients feel that VCs are generally shorter, with less time to have a conversation, making them better suited to brief follow ups or ensuring that the patient is okay. 41 , 43 As one patient described: ‘It was less personal, you know? It was a little more distant. I felt I had less time to talk to him. Less time to have a conversation’. 41 On the other hand, some patients believe that VCs take more time 42 , 43 as one patient expressed: ‘ I felt like…there was more time…because I’ve been to doctors a lot and I just felt that the time that was spent, that I spent with the doctor was longer that if I had been in the office and she had other patients waiting ’ . 43 In acute situations VC is not seen as a good option – something that was highlighted by patients with COPD and depression. 42 , 44 Patients with COPD mentioned the need for admission in the case of acute decline, rather than VC, although some also felt that VCs should be offered to far more unwell patients than them. 44 The patients interviewed in that study appear to have extensive lived experience and knowledge of their disease, and seem accustomed to managing it on their own. This may have contributed to their opinion of VCs as suitable for more unwell patients, but still not for acute situations. They felt that VC does not add to their already substantial knowledge about their illness. One patient explained: ‘ You can’t call up the screen 24 hours a day. If I have a panic attack and feel poorly, all I can do is call the emergency services ’ . 44 Furthermore, VC is not felt to be appropriate for assessing complications or making treatment decisions, as was especially highlighted by oncology patients. 43 For follow ups, VC is felt to be especially satisfying 42 , 43 , 46 but not when the issues are complex. 42 , 43 , 53 Experiences of receiving bad news relate to several of the themes in this review. Some participants feel that it is easier to hang up and not think about bad news if it is received through VC, which was felt to be inappropriate where there is a need to discuss treatment options FTF. 43 , 51 As result in one of the studies, no consensus was reached on the acceptability of VC regarding the delivery of bad news. 43

Patients described changing their attitudes to VC after trying it, and so overcoming technical problems and discomfort . 41 – 43 , 46 , 48 , 50 , 51 This acceptance is described as accompanying familiarity with the technology. 42 , 43 , 46 , 51 However, not everyone has the capacity and courage to try things like VC, which requires the ability to carefully listen to instructions, and understand and follow them. 41 , 42 Some patients are dependent on other people in order to be able to use technology, and some feel that VC is only suitable for those accustomed to the internet. 41 Technical problems lead to frustration, reduced trust during interactions, and feelings of incompetence and concern 42 , 43 , 51 as one patient described: ‘ Before, I’d sort of stress myself out thinking, “How dumb can you be?” I’m not dumb, it's just the stroke, I just need to keep reading it ’ . 49 Problems mentioned relating to VC included transmission interruptions and audio-video problems, 42 and the importance of having a reliable network was regularly highlighted. 41 , 46 There is a need and expectation of technical support as backup, 41 , 42 , 48 and some patients are concerned about their personal data and cyber security. 41 , 48 However, other patients are unconcerned with technical challenges and loss of connection, 42 , 51 and feel that VC is ‘real’, despite any technical problems. 49 Patients describe feeling increased self-confidence, positive feelings and comfort when they learn to use the technology. 42 , 43 , 46 , 51 This shows that many patients experience a movement during their time in contact with healthcare through VC, and one of the studies describes this movement as a new way of communicating that is essential to feeling safe and healthy when healthcare is conducted via VC. 46 One patient expressed: ‘ I was first intimidated by the whole experience, wondering, how is this gonna work…? But by the time I…The last one I had…with my doctor, I was comfortable with it ’ . 43

Main theme 2: Feeling secure, relaxed and having mutual focus in an equitable partnership

The second main theme relates to patients feeling that VC contributes to a sense of security and equity when the conditions are right, leading to fulfilment of needs and empowered patients. Authors in one study expressed: “ This manifest[s] in that they were able to relax and felt more empowered to express themselves better from within [the] practical comfort and easy familiarity of their own home.” 42

Patients feel that VC offers a sense of privacy and security at home . 41 – 46 , 48 , 51 This is appreciated, and makes patients feel calm and empowered in the comfort of their homes, described by the authors in one study as ‘ Having the opportunity for more frequent contact means increased security ’ . 42 Patients describe a feeling of security associated with VC and the possibility of ‘just pressing the button’, referring to the ability to act and be in control. 44 – 46 According to one patient: ‘ It means that I’m not anxious … as much as I have been before … because I can control how I am … I couldn’t before. I can get in contact with you very quickly; of course I could before, but it was in a different way…this gives a feeling of security, and when you feel secure, you don’t hyperventilate, and then you don’t get breathless so much, and that descending spiral is turned the other way round, …so you feel much better in general. And you are happier and more energetic ’ . 45 The feeling of security over VC is also described as an ability to distance themselves, stated by one patient as knowing that ‘ There is safety there; no one can do anything to me against my will ’ . 51 This feeling of security at home should, however, be interpreted with caution, because there are conditions relating to VCs that are believed to be crucial, such as support from family and the possibility of immediate contact with healthcare at any time. 43 – 45 One patient described: ‘ I don’t feel like I actually have to be there for comfort or anything like that. Yeah, I guess some people might need that. For me, the comfort's more my family and that type of thing, which would be here anyway ’ . 43 Being at home gives a sense of privacy. Moreover, VC allows patients to avoid showing emotions in front of others, which is appreciated. 43 , 51

Having more time, relaxation and focus are reported as common outcomes of VC. 42 , 43 , 46 , 48 , 50 , 51 Patients describe VC as being relaxed and not making them feel rushed, 43 , 48 , 53 and appreciate the fact that it allows healthcare professionals to pay undivided attention to them by listening to and looking only at them. 42 , 43 Other positives include more focused conversations, 42 , 43 stated by one patient as: ‘ … you go more directly to the problem and the conversation is more concentrated because there are not things that divide your attention ’ . 42 Patients report feeling on the same level as a result of VC, contributing to feelings of responsibility, self-determination, and equity. 42 , 45 , 50 , 53 In one of the studies this was expressed by the authors as: ‘ …they felt more equal and engaged in the co-planning of the treatment with the provider ’ 42 and a patient explained: ‘ It's just me and the doctor talking on a video visit. I’m at my office, he's in his office- and it's very personal ’ . 43 VC also makes patients feel that they are at the centre of their care, and able to contribute by planning alongside healthcare professionals. 42 , 45 It was felt as positive to be able to see healthcare professionals through VC, 41 – 47 , 50 – 53 and this is to be understood in contrast to phone calls with healthcare personnel. Patients report that VC improves communication as it allows patients to see attitudes, feelings and reactions, 41 , 42 45 – 47 , 49 , 51 – 53 along with even a sense of humour. 43 Another aspect is hearing problems, which mean that being able to see and collaborate with a nurse via VC is felt to be positive. 46 To be able to see each other is something that benefits the relationship between the patient and the healthcare professional. 42 , 47 , 51

The result shows that many patients are satisfied with VC – that their needs are met similarly to FTF . 41 – 46 , 48 – 53 The most frequent expression of this was the opinion that VC is as good as FTF, 41 , 42 , 44 , 52 or that the two are not very different. 49 , 53 As one patient described it: ‘ Yeah I found it fairly natural and I don’t see it as being anything different than if I was sitting in your office and we were talking across the table. So I feel it's pretty well the same thing ’ . 49 Some patients feel close to healthcare professionals when using VC, 53 and report that they would choose VC again and recommend it to others. 42 The positive feelings towards VC sometimes had a practical reason, such as the technician installing the equipment being an appreciated distraction from daily life. 44 VC is appreciated because it is felt to be simple to use 51 , 53 and a new ‘normal’. 50

Main theme 3: Limitations regarding personal needs and practical help

The third main theme concerns VC restricting patients' ability to communicate effectively enough to obtain the help they need, whether that help is practical, physical or psychological, as one patient expressed it: “ Well, it's a little bit more shorter and brief like just to make sure everything's going okay. When you’re in an office visit with the doctor, you’re more specific and asking specific questions and you’re there a little bit longer, I think, like you get more in detail.” 43

Some patients report that VC does not add anything and is insufficient . 42 – 44 , 48 , 52 This is reported by patients who already know much about their illness, or who have complex problems. 42 – 44 A patient stated: ‘Well , I don’t think it would help me so much, since now I know what's expected of me, after being in and out [of hospital] four times with the same illness. So the screen wouldn’t be able to help me now ’ . 44 Some patients believe that a phone call can be beneficial. 47 , 52 In one of the studies that investigated participants with COPD, VCs seem to be booked on a regular schedule, instead of based on the needs of patients, which may have contributed to the feeling that VCs do not add anything. 44 Some find it more difficult to talk and ask questions during VC, and difficult to open up in front of a screen. 42 , 43 , 45 , 51 , 52 One patient expressed: ‘ If I had something highly personal to discuss, I would feel less comfortable doing it virtually… ’ . 50 Difficulties when talking is described by a patient as: ‘ I also find that often in video chat I interrupt and I get interrupted more and I think it's cause either those visual cues are not the same’, 53 further explained by a patient as: ‘ When using video communication, you have to sit and wait for each other and this makes the conversation more formal. Meeting in person makes you feel less afraid of interrupting each other’. 52 In one study, the patients described FTF as easier because the appointment is longer in the office, they have more willingness to talk FTF, and it is better when questions come up. 43 Technical problems during emotional conversations is another concern, which make patients reluctant to ask sensitive questions. 43 , 51 A patient stated: ‘ Just even the possibility of maybe even bringing up an emotional concern − I might not be willing to do so for the fear that it would cut out in the middle of it and then I’m not − I’m left without support in that situation. So not having − I guess not knowing based on technology would be a disadvantage’. 43 Some also described not being able to conduct VCs independently as a reason for VC being insufficient, 42 and they argued that VC should only be a supplement to FTF consultations. 48 That physical exam and practical help are limited during VC, 41 , 43 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 52 is reported to contribute to a feeling of uncertainty. 51 Patients experience limitations concerning physical contact and exams during VC, 51 and find it negative. The absence of resources and equipment for measuring and assessing contribute to this experience. 41 , 43 The ability to fill in paperwork and obtain information and material were limited during VC, and patients generally value these things 43 , 52 as explained by a patient: ‘ Let's say my diagnosis of cancer had been brought up to me on a tele video visit, I wouldn’t like that very much because I can get a lot more information in person and they can refer me to other people in the office right then. Or they can hand me a booklet or something like that they can, something right then. I mean, I know they could say, okay, I’m gonna send you a link to a PDF file or something like that. But you kind a need a little more − for something that's big like that, you kinda feel like you need a little more in-person visit ’ . 43 The value of a tissue being given to patients is also mentioned, and is seen as a limitation of VC. 49 As is the impossibility of certain rehabilitation exercises. 48 It was also felt to be difficult to consult others and access translation services during VC. 43 , 45 However, the quantity of data supporting this result is not great, which could be due to the characteristics of the participants in the included studies, or the need for consultations to be more frequent within some specialties. Oncology patients find VC to be an obstacle when the need to consult others occurs during VCs; this contrasts with FTF, where the patient can be referred to or speak with other team members while in the office. 43 The inability to use translation services during VC is also noted by oncology patients. 43

Main theme 4: Increased vulnerability and lack of emotional feedback

The fourth main theme relates to patients experiencing relationships with healthcare professionals mediated solely by VC as being unsatisfactory and feeling increased personal vulnerability due to being at home with less emotional support and more responsibility. One patient described: “ I would say that it is − in an odd way [video visits] kind of makes you a little more vulnerable to your provider because they see you in your home and sometimes in your pajamas, maybe they see − I don’t have children, but maybe they see your kids running around or they might be more attuned to parts of your personal life that you might keep confidential, whether − just in terms of making the relationship as − they probably want it to be professional or whatever. So I think that video does permit a level of vulnerability that an office visit would not.” 43

In 12 of the 13 included studies, the authors conclude that there exist challenges to the patient-healthcare professional relationship when using VC. 41 – 52 Although VC offers patients the ability to see the health care professionals, the studies report that it is easier for them if they know each other before VC. 42 , 45 , 47 , 50 , 52 Patients feel that it is not appropriate to meet new healthcare professionals via VC, and that knowing them beforehand is beneficial. 43 , 52 One patient expressed: ‘ But I think also, having met the person in person and then relating to them is the advantage… ’ . 48 It is important to note that positive feelings of safety, relaxation and satisfaction relating to an appointment with a healthcare professional that is known to the patient are not always clearly dependent on VC, and could instead be an expression of the benefits of known healthcare professionals in general. 45 , 51 , 52 Patients describe an initial FTF meeting as essential, and state that where VC is used, it must be combined with FTF, because a relationship mediated solely by VC is not good enough. 42 , 47 Notably, some patients describe being able to trust an unknown physician that they have met through VC as described by the authors in one study: ‘ Some of the patients who did experience trust in the doctor when meeting her for the first time online talked about the quality of their interaction and the perceived personal investment of the doctor (for example, doctor listening attentively to their problem), which generated trust in the doctor ’. 51 Interestingly, a patient having VC with a therapist felt more comfortable knowing that they would not meet again and expressed: ‘ yoúre telling them very personal things that you might not tell many people umm and I actually, online was okay for that because there wasn’t going to be ongoing like professional relationship ’ . 53 The relationship-based challenges are believed to depend on limitations in reading and understanding nonverbal signals, which are needed when building trust. 50 – 52 According to some studies, the context and experience of the room in which the visit takes place can contribute to a feeling of trust and sense of a relationship with a healthcare professional during FTF visits, and this is lost with VC. 50 , 51 , 53 In-person appointments are, according to many patients, the best way to meet with healthcare professionals and are superior to all alternatives 41 – 49 , 52 ; when these are not possible, VC is second best. 43

Patients are more vulnerable at home is a feeling that is expressed by patients, and relates to the fact that VC allows healthcare professionals to see the interior of the patient's home, which is perceived as very personal. 43 Some patients described feeling embarrassed to be seen before they had brushed their hair and so on. 44 Seeing oneself on camera is described by patients as uncomfortable, and as creating a feeling of alienation. 47 , 52 , 53 One patient described it: ‘ I do not like to watch myself on a video and prefer a telephone conversation. When using video conversation, I felt nervous and insecure. I feel uncomfortable being called up that way. So, I didn't attain what I wanted. I did not feel I could speak freely ’ . 52 The results show that the quality of VC depends on the ability of patients to create a quiet space at home, which is not always easy. 50 , 53 Vulnerability is also seen in the importance of patients having access to a good support system, such as family at home, in the event of distressing news. 43 , 46 Home is a place that, for some patients, offers security, relaxation, and calm, while for others it is related to a feeling of being insecure and vulnerable. Patients feel that VC is less personal and provides less emotional support , 41 – 43 , 48 – 50 , 52 , 53 which makes it difficult to feel compassion, comfort and reassurance from the healthcare professionals, 41 , 43 , 50 , 52 and makes patients feel uncomfortable, insecure, worried and anxious. 41 , 52 The idea of VC being ‘less personal’ recurs throughout the studies 41 , 43 , 48 , 49 , 52 ; it is felt to sometimes leave patients with feelings of loneliness, 50 distant 41 , 52 and being unimportant, 43 , 52 as one patient expressed: ‘ I feel like the tele video visits sometimes you feel like you’re next person in line, I gotta get out here. Whereas if I’m in the office, it's like okay. You feel more like you’re right there, I can ask more questions, and I don’t know. It just feels more like it's a little easier there ’ . 43 Missing eye contact was mentioned as one reason for this. 47 , 52 In contrast, patients believe that it is easier to dismiss things and turn off if they become angry during VC compared to when meeting FTF. 52

The results show that VC creates obligations and pressure , mostly when it interferes with daily life and interrupts everyday routine. 44 , 52 Some patients report feeling stuck at home in front of a screen, and that this is an unwanted obligation. 44 A patient stated: ‘ It's good to have … but you have to be home at the agreed time … and I think I have enough on my plate at the moment … I have to go to physiotherapy and so on. If I have one of those screens … I will be stuck at home ’ 44 . VC is also described as involving a tiresome routine and demanding long sessions, and requiring patients to be presentable early in the morning, making it difficult to stay motivated. 44 , 49 , 51 One patient expressed: ‘ The sessions are large and intense, sometimes they’re too intense, it depends on how muddled the brain is on any particular day’. 49 Some patients feel pressured to master the technology required to undertake VCs and to know what to do, 49 , 50 , 53 as well as to express themselves verbally. 49 The authors in one study explained: ‘ The lack of physical touch also points to the increased importance of verbal communication during teleconsultation − in the absence of the physical examination, the patient's verbal account of her problem becomes very important. This puts a lot of pressure on the patient, who might not be able to give satisfactory account of her problem’. 51

Discussion

This study systematically reviewed 13 qualitative studies to synthesise their findings regarding adult patients’ experiences of VC with healthcare professionals. The synthesis resulted in four main themes: (1) suitable for less complex issues when technical problems can be solved ; (2) feeling secure, relaxed, and having mutual focus in an equitable partnership ; (3) limitations regarding personal needs and practical help and (4) increased vulnerability and lack of emotional feedback .

The results of this study are insights from qualitative research on the varying experiences of VC, which depend on the context, personal circumstances, and individual abilities of patients. Thus, the results state that VC is sometimes experienced as being as good as FTF, but FTF is still the best option for quality healthcare. Patient experience can, presumably, vary depending on practical factors such as having home visits compared to travel long distances. If you increase the risk of attracting a deadly virus when visiting the office your motivation to use VC will likely increase. This review presents patient experiences in various specialities and over a time-period including a pandemic, with widely differing circumstances and expectations. Interpreting the results must be done with consideration that these scenarios are represented in the original studies. Results published in 2023 show that the main reason patients did not want to continue using video consultations was a preference for FTF care, 15 regardless of disease or clinical scenario. 16 Usability concerns were less commonly cited. 15 When needing a prescription or receiving test results, a telephone consultations was preferred. 16

Overall, the results show that VC contributes to feelings of security and empowerment due to its accessibility, because the home is experienced as a private, and safe place where the patient is in charge. Being at home can contribute to patients performing actions with confidence 54 and facilitate empowered patient self-management. 55 For some, VC can increase patients’ privacy and prevent the sense of being on display in, for example, a waiting room. These empowering feelings depend on multiple circumstances, particularly the availability of home-based support and health conditions. The need of finding a quiet place at home to create a private, safe place for the VC, is sometimes challenging, which is in line with previous research. 14 , 56 Another circumstance that is recognised as crucial for patients’ feelings of security is the ability to contact healthcare whenever needed. This is not a ‘built-in’ function of VC but certainly affects patients’ sense of control. Empowered patients are more likely to feel responsible, self-determined, and equal to healthcare professionals during VC, facilitating co-planning alongside healthcare professionals and self-confidence in overcoming initial technical problems and discomfort. It seems that VC creates a sense of equality in terms of dialogue during such circumstances. Research has highlighted a shift in power dynamics from hierarchical to collaborative in the physician–patient relationship, and the complexities of vulnerabilities when using digital tools. 57 The shifting of roles in healthcare due to the use of digital tools has for long been an area of interest emphasising the need to redesign the relational geography between actors in the healthcare process. 58 With empowered patients, research has shown a need for healthcare professionals to transition from a role of authority to one of guidance, 57 , 59 and with a shift of power and roles comes a shift of responsibility between healthcare professionals. 58 , 60 , 61

VC contributes to patients’ feelings that they are on the same level as healthcare professionals, but there are challenges with building relationships, especially when the two have never met before. Patients find it harder to talk, ask questions and discuss complex issues during VC. When concerned with potential technical problems, patients become reluctant to discuss emotional topics. Similarly, previous research describe that even though most patients experience a sense of being in the same room as the healthcare professionals during VC ‘ the intimacy was experienced depending on the quality of the technical equipment ’ . 62 Unfortunately, technological difficulties relating to VC are still a challenge, even in highly developed countries. A systematic review in the Nordic countries found the technology uncertainties to be the dominant challenge present across all clinical specialisation studied, 22 making it difficult to guarantee optimal technical conditions for VC. This reduces trust in the ‘digital relationship’ between patients and healthcare professionals, and patients argue that VCs should only supplement FTF consultations, not replace them.

Another contribution to lost trust in the patient–professional relationship when it is conducted by VC is the absence of the physical room and context that is experienced when meeting FTF. VC is experienced as less personal with eye contact missing, which gives the ability to distance oneself. This distance can be positive when it feels like a protective space − helping the person avoid pressure or persuasion − and allowing for better focus without external distractions. However, distance can also be a negative barrier, creating a sense of alienation between the patient and the healthcare professional. 63 Similarly, our result show that distance can be negative when it makes things easier to dismiss and hinders a trusting relationship. When comparing differences in patient–doctor communication between FTF, and mainly VC (some telephone), a systematic review found that there is little significant difference between FTF and teleconsultation, with one exception, duration. FTF consultations were longer on average and there were fewer gaps to engage in small talk during teleconsultation. 64 Studies show that missing small talk during VC makes the relationship more challenging. 21 , 65 The experience of VC as stressed and shorter could be related to the missed small talk in our result and challenge the building of relationship with unknown healthcare professionals.

As healthcare moves from offices to homes there is a shift in power that can empower, as stated earlier, but also bring a sense of vulnerability. Patients feel more vulnerable when healthcare professionals see their home environments. Their personal space has been described by healthcare professionals as the patients holiest place 66 that is almost sacred. 67 In addition, the personal preparedness seems to change, resulting in embarrassment over unbrushed hair, and alienation can be caused by seeing oneself on camera. This vulnerability, combined with less emotional support from healthcare, is a risk with VC that needs to be accounted for. Research on self-view during virtual meetings indicate the need to customise the technological features individually since it is associated with the users degree of public self-consciousness, 68 and has a negative impact on satisfaction while listening but can be neutral while speaking. 69

Importantly, the results suggest that healthcare professionals should be sensitive, and the organisation flexible enough to succeed in supporting patients, regardless of the communication tool used. VC in healthcare is a balancing act between empowerment and vulnerability, obligation and support, distance and relationship. To deliver high-quality healthcare using VC, patient involvement and co-operation are essential.

Future research could explore patient experiences of VC, taking differences in expectations and motivations into account. The perspective of healthcare professionals is important to add in future research for a deeper understanding of the challenges in patient–professional relationship, and how to decrease the risk of vulnerability in combination with less emotional support during VC. How individual customisation of technological features affects the patients’ and healthcare professionals’ experiences of VC needs to be evaluated. Knowledge on how to best support the shift of roles among stakeholders due to VC should be further compiled and implemented in the healthcare system.

Limitations

The limitations of this review relate to the quality of the included studies, not all of which reported on, for example, recruitment strategy and the relationships between researchers and participants. This is information that could have affected the results and has been accounted for in the assessment of confidence in the findings. Further, the included studies only report from middle- and high-income countries, the search was limited to English-language publications, and grey literature was excluded due to challenges in quality assessment and time constraints. Further, the exclusion of mixed-method studies in this review could have resulted in missed knowledge that would be important for the aim and transferability of the results. The included studies capture patient experiences of VC across a wide range of contexts, diagnoses, and healthcare professions, which enables a general conclusion across settings but limits the specificity. Transferability to age groups other than adults is limited.

Conclusions

Patients feel that VC provides accessible care that is best suited for less complex issues, and its use is preferred when patients already know the healthcare professional they will be meeting. Taking time for small talk during VC is important to more actively improve the patient–professional relationship and increase the feeling of being seen as a person. Patients avoid asking complex and emotional questions during VC because they fear interruptions due to technical problems. Making a back-up plan in co-operation with the patient is crucial to increase the feeling of safety. In addition to overcoming technical issues, a quiet place and home-based support is important, which healthcare professionals should emphasise when suggesting VC. VCs can offer a neutral, non-hierarchical arena, and contribute to patient empowerment through a more focused dialogue. The shift of roles and responsibilities between stakeholders is necessary to support in the development of future digital healthcare. During VC, some patients experience a distance that is challenging for the relationship between the patient and the healthcare professional, but this can also strengthen the feeling of security. Patients may feel more vulnerable when revealing private spaces via video and engaging in stressful VC conversations with less support and more responsibilities compared to FTF visits – a risk healthcare stakeholders should consider.

The findings of this review indicate that the mode of communication between patients and healthcare professionals should be determined collaboratively with patients and supports system designs that enable individually tailored VC, recognising that patient vulnerability spans diverse settings and conditions. For the time being, VC should be a complement to, and not a replacement for, FTF conversations in healthcare.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-dhj-10.1177_20552076251404513 - Supplemental material for Patients’ experiences of video consultations: A qualitative systematic review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-dhj-10.1177_20552076251404513 for Patients’ experiences of video consultations: A qualitative systematic review by Lina Ärlebrant, Robyn Schimmer and Anette Edin-Liljegren in DIGITAL HEALTH

sj-docx-2-dhj-10.1177_20552076251404513 - Supplemental material for Patients’ experiences of video consultations: A qualitative systematic review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-dhj-10.1177_20552076251404513 for Patients’ experiences of video consultations: A qualitative systematic review by Lina Ärlebrant, Robyn Schimmer and Anette Edin-Liljegren in DIGITAL HEALTH

sj-docx-3-dhj-10.1177_20552076251404513 - Supplemental material for Patients’ experiences of video consultations: A qualitative systematic review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-dhj-10.1177_20552076251404513 for Patients’ experiences of video consultations: A qualitative systematic review by Lina Ärlebrant, Robyn Schimmer and Anette Edin-Liljegren in DIGITAL HEALTH

sj-docx-4-dhj-10.1177_20552076251404513 - Supplemental material for Patients’ experiences of video consultations: A qualitative systematic review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-4-dhj-10.1177_20552076251404513 for Patients’ experiences of video consultations: A qualitative systematic review by Lina Ärlebrant, Robyn Schimmer and Anette Edin-Liljegren in DIGITAL HEALTH

sj-docx-5-dhj-10.1177_20552076251404513 - Supplemental material for Patients’ experiences of video consultations: A qualitative systematic review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-5-dhj-10.1177_20552076251404513 for Patients’ experiences of video consultations: A qualitative systematic review by Lina Ärlebrant, Robyn Schimmer and Anette Edin-Liljegren in DIGITAL HEALTH

Acknowledgements

A special thanks to Information Specialist Mattias Lennartsson at Umeå University Library and PhD Åsa Holmner for their support and help during the initial phase of this systematic review. The authors would like to thank David J Boothroyd for proofreading the manuscript before submission.

ORCID iDs: Lina Ärlebrant https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0814-8412

Robyn Schimmer https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4996-222X

Anette Edin-Liljegren https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3220-9557

Ethical considerations: All data included in this review were derived from publicly available sources, and no primary data collection involving human participants was conducted. Therefore, ethical approval was not required.

Consent to participate: Not applicable.

Consent for publication: All authors have agreed to the publication.

Contributorships: LÄ was involved in study design, search strategy, literature search, duplicates removal, study selection, quality assessment, data extraction, data synthesis, quality appraisal, and manuscript writing; and RS and AEL in duplicates removal, study selection, quality assessment, data extraction, data synthesis, quality appraisal, manuscript review, and comments.

Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Open access funding was provided by Umeå University.

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors declare that this review is reported according to the PRISMA statement guidelines for systematic reviews, and in line with the “Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research” (ENTREQ) statement. The protocol for this review was registered in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO; Registration ID: CRD42022330476). Details regarding the assessment of confidence are fully public at https://isoq.epistemonikos.org/login .

Supplemental material: Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

1 Kitamura C Zurawel-Balaura L Wong RKS . How effective is video consultation in clinical oncology? A systematic review . Curr Oncol 2010 ; 17 : 17 – 27 . 10.3747/co.v17i3.513 PMC2880899 20567623

2 Global strategy on digital health 2020-2025, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240020924 (accessed 27 June 2024) .

3 Totten AM Womack DM Griffin JC , et al. Telehealth-guided provider-to-provider communication to improve rural health: a systematic review . J Telemed Telecare 2022 ; 30 : 1209 – 1229 . 36567431 10.1177/1357633X221139892 PMC11389081

4 Monaghesh E Hajizadeh A . The role of telehealth during COVID-19 outbreak: a systematic review based on current evidence . BMC Public Health 2020 ; 20 : 1193 . 32738884 10.1186/s12889-020-09301-4 PMC7395209

5 Kadir MA . Role of telemedicine in healthcare during COVID-19 pandemic in developing countries . Telehealth Med Today 2020 : 1 – 5 . DOI: 10.30953/tmt.v5.187

6 Ndwabe H Basu A Mohammed J . Post pandemic analysis on comprehensive utilization of telehealth and telemedicine . Clin eHealth 2024 ; 7 : 5 – 14 .

7 Colbert GB Venegas-Vera AV Lerma EV . Utility of telemedicine in the COVID-19 era . RCM 2020 ; 21 : 583 – 587 . 10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.188 33388003

8 Ekeland AG Bowes A Flottorp S . Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews . Int J Med Inf 2010 ; 79 : 736 – 771 . 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.08.006 20884286

9 Carrillo de Albornoz S Sia K-L Harris A . The effectiveness of teleconsultations in primary care: systematic review . Fam Pract 2022 ; 39 : 168 – 182 . 34278421 10.1093/fampra/cmab077 PMC8344904

10 Campbell K Greenfield G Li E , et al. The impact of virtual consultations on the quality of primary care. Systematic review . J Med Internet Res 2023 ; 25 : e48920 . 10.2196/48920 PMC10500356 37647117

11 Krzyzaniak N Greenwood H Scott AM , et al. The effectiveness of telehealth versus face-to face interventions for anxiety disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis . J Telemed Telecare 2024 ; 30 : 250 – 261 . 34860613 10.1177/1357633X211053738

12 Byambasuren O Greenwood H Bakhit M , et al. Comparison of telephone and video telehealth consultations: systematic review . J Med Internet Res 2023 ; 25 : e49942 . 10.2196/49942 PMC10692872 37976100

13 Caffery LJ Catapan SDC Taylor ML , et al. Telephone versus video consultations: a systematic review of comparative effectiveness studies and guidance for choosing the most appropriate modality . J Telemed Telecare 2024 ; 31 : 1 – 10 . 10.1177/1357633X241232464 38419502

14 Thiyagarajan A Grant C Griffiths F , et al. Exploring patients’ and clinicians’ experiences of video consultations in primary care: a systematic scoping review . BJGP Open 2020 ; 4 : 1 – 8 . 10.3399/bjgpopen20X101020 PMC7330183 32184212

15 Muli I Hvitfeldt H Cajander Å , et al. To connect or not connect: long-term adoption of video consultations, and reasons for discontinuing use . J Telemed Telecare 2023 ; 31 : 572 – 584 . 37787186 10.1177/1357633X231203267 PMC12044205

16 Snoswell CL Haydon HM Kelly JT , et al. How do consumers prefer their care delivered: in-person, telephone or videoconference? J Telemed Telecare 2023 ; 30 : 1555 – 1562 . 36927220 10.1177/1357633X231160333

17 Johnsen HM Øgård-Repål A Martinez SG , et al. Patients’ perceptions of use, needs, and preferences related to a telemedicine solution for HIV care in a Norwegian outpatient clinic: a qualitative study . BMC Health Serv Res 2024 ; 24 : 209 . 38360650 10.1186/s12913-024-10659-z PMC10870609

18 Morris C Waterman D Henson LA . Understanding the benefits and limitations of mixing virtual and face-to-face consultations to outpatient palliative care services; a mixed-methods study . BMC Palliat Care 2024 ; 23 : 260 . 39523347 10.1186/s12904-024-01578-1 PMC11552375

19 Moeller AM Christensen LF Hansen JP , et al. Patients’ acceptance of video consultations in the mental health services: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research . Digital Health 2022 ; 8 : 20552076221075148 . 35154803 10.1177/20552076221075148 PMC8832590

20 Shaker AA Simonsen E Tarp K , et al. Capturing patients’ and clinicians’ experiences of using video consultations in mental health outpatient services: qualitative thematic analysis . JMIR Format Res 2024 ; 8 : e50580 . 10.2196/50580 PMC11375385 39167796

21 Assing Hvidt E Christensen NP Grønning A , et al. What are patients’ first-time experiences with video consulting? A qualitative interview study in Danish general practice in times of COVID-19 . BMJ Open 2022 ; 12 : e054415 . 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054415 PMC9013986 35428624

22 Baluszek JB Wiig S Myrnes-Hansen KV , et al. Specialized healthcare practitioners’ challenges in performing video consultations to patients in Nordic Countries – a systematic review and narrative synthesis . BMC Health Serv Res 2022 ; 22 : 1432 . 36443770 10.1186/s12913-022-08837-y PMC9706945

23 Bergholtz J Wolf A Crine V , et al. Patient and public involvement in healthcare: a systematic mapping review of systematic reviews – identification of current research and possible directions for future research . BMJ Open 2024 ; 14 : e083215 . 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083215 PMC11418490 39304210

24 Chung-Lee L Catallo C Meade A . What are COVID-19 patient preferences for and experiences with virtual care? Findings from a scoping review . J Patient Exper 2023 ; 10 : 1 – 9 . 10.1177/23743735231215603 PMC10664431 38026065

25 Wanderås MR Abildsnes E Thygesen E , et al. Video consultation in general practice: a scoping review on use, experiences, and clinical decisions . BMC Health Serv Res 2023 ; 23 : 316 . 36997997 10.1186/s12913-023-09309-7 PMC10063329

26 Orlando JF Beard M Kumar S . Systematic review of patient and caregivers’ satisfaction with telehealth videoconferencing as a mode of service delivery in managing patients’ health . PLoS ONE 2019 ; 14 : e0221848 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0221848 PMC6716655 31469865

27 Jones JE Damery SL Phillips K , et al. Real-time remote outpatient consultations in secondary and tertiary care: a systematic review of inequalities in invitation and uptake . PLoS ONE 2022 ; 17 : e0269435 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0269435 PMC9165897 35657995

28 Eldaly AS Maniaci MJ Paulson MR , et al. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine in acute care setting: a systematic review . J Clin Transl Res 2022 ; 8 : 540 – 556 . 36518201 PMC9741928

29 PROSPERO . https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ (accessed 5 June 2025) .

30 Leonardsen A-C Grondahl V Helgesen A-K , et al. Different stakeholders’ experiences with digital healthservice soultions-somatic diseases., https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42020154490 (accessed 3 June 2025) .

31 Ikram A Malik S . Patients’ perspectives on telemedicine based chronic disease management during Covid-19 pandemic – a qualitative systematic review. PROSPERO , https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023456817 (accessed 3 June 2025) .

32 Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM , et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews . Br Med J 2021 ; n71 : 1 – 9 . 10.1136/bmj.n71 PMC8005924 33782057

33 Tong A Flemming K McInnes E , et al. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ . BMC Med Res Methodol 2012 ; 12 : 181 . 23185978 10.1186/1471-2288-12-181 PMC3552766

34 Harris JL Booth A Cargo M , et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis . J Clin Epidemiol 2018 ; 97 : 39 – 48 . 29248725 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.023

35 Svensk MeSH . https://mesh.kib.ki.se/ (accessed 5 June 2025) .

36 Merriam-Webster: America’s Most Trusted Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/ (accessed 5 June 2025) .

37 Ouzzani M Hammady H Fedorowicz Z , et al. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews . Syst Rev 2016 ; 5 : 210 . 27919275 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 PMC5139140

38 CASP Checklists – Critical Appraisal Skills Programme . CASP – Critical Appraisal Skills Programme , https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/ (accessed 24 May 2024) .

39 Thomas J Harden A . Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews . BMC Med Res Methodol 2008 ; 8 : 45 . 18616818 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 PMC2478656

40 Lewin S Booth A Glenton C , et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series . Implement Sci 2018 ; 13 : 2 . 29384079 10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3 PMC5791040

41 Chan S O’Riordan A Appireddy R . Exploring the determinants and experiences of senior stroke patients with virtual care . Can J Neurol Sci 2021 ; 48 : 87 – 93 . 32713397 10.1017/cjn.2020.162

42 Christensen LF Wilson R Hansen JP , et al. A qualitative study of patients’ and providers’ experiences with the use of videoconferences by older adults with depression . Int J Ment Health Nurs 2020 ; 30 : 427 – 439 . 33179416 10.1111/inm.12803

43 Granberg RE Heyer A Rising KL , et al. Medical oncology patient perceptions of telehealth video visits . JCO Oncol Pract 2021 ; 17 : e1333 – e1343 . 10.1200/OP.21.00086 34288697

44 Mathar H Fastholm P Sandholm N , et al. A qualitative study of televideo consultations for COPD patients . Br J Nurs 2015 ; 24 : 205 – 209 . 25723262 10.12968/bjon.2015.24.4.205

45 Nissen L Lindhardt T . A qualitative study of COPD-patients’ experience of a telemedicine intervention . Int J Med Inform 2017 ; 107 : 11 – 17 . 29029687 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.08.004

46 Nordtug B Brataas HV Rygg LO . Patient experiences with videoconferencing as social contact and in follow-up from oncology nurses in primary health care . Health Psychol Open 2021 ; 8 : 1 – 10 . 10.1177/20551029211012208 PMC8072864 33996137

47 Parkinson A Drew J Hall Dykgraaf S , et al. ‘They're getting a taste of our world’: a qualitative study of people with multiple sclerosis’ experiences of accessing health care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Australian capital territory . Health Expect 2021 ; 24 : 1607 – 1617 . 34227728 10.1111/hex.13284 PMC8483188

48 Shulver W Killington M Morris C , et al. ‘Well, if the kids can do it, I can do it’: older rehabilitation patients’ experiences of telerehabilitation . Health Expect 2016 ; 20 : 120 – 129 . 26890025 10.1111/hex.12443 PMC5217918

49 Lawson DW Stolwyk RJ Ponsford JL , et al. Acceptability of telehealth in post-stroke memory rehabilitation: a qualitative analysis . Neuropsychol Rehabil 2022 ; 32 : 1 – 21 . 32677539 10.1080/09602011.2020.1792318

50 Koppel PD De Gagne JC Docherty S , et al. Exploring nurse and patient experiences of developing rapport during oncology ambulatory care videoconferencing visits: qualitative descriptive study . J Med Internet Res 2022 ; 24 : e39920 . 10.2196/39920 PMC9501656 36074558

51 Grīnfelde M . Face-to-Face with the doctor online: phenomenological analysis of patient experience of teleconsultation . Hum Stud 2022 ; 45 : 673 – 696 . 36467592 10.1007/s10746-022-09652-4 PMC9707169

52 Moeller AM Hansen JP Andersen PT . Patients’ experiences of home-based psychotherapy via videoconference: a qualitative study . Arch Psychiatr Nurs 2022 ; 39 : 91 – 96 . 35688550 10.1016/j.apnu.2022.03.004

53 Andrews B Klein B Corboy D , et al. Video chat therapist assistance in an adaptive digital intervention for anxiety and depression: reflections from participants and therapists . Prof Psychol: Res Pract 2023 ; 54 : 418 – 429 .

54 Bavngaard MV Lüchau EC Hvidt EA , et al. Exploring patient participation during video consultations: a qualitative study . Digital Health 2023 ; 9 : 20552076231180682 . 37325071 10.1177/20552076231180682 PMC10265318

55 Walthall H Schutz S Snowball J , et al. Patients’ and clinicians’ experiences of remote consultation? A narrative synthesis . J Adv Nurs 2022 ; 78 : 1954 – 1967 . 35362191 10.1111/jan.15230 PMC9321562

56 Ek C Liljegren P-D Edin-Liljegren A . Patients with cardiovascular disease revisiting specialist physicians via remote treatment: interview study of experiences . JMIR Hum Factors 2023 ; 10 : e43125 – e43125 . 10.2196/43125 PMC10273038 37261892

57 Nassehi D Gripsrud BH Ramvi E . Theoretical perspectives underpinning research on the physician-patient relationship in a digital health practice: scoping review . Interact J Med Res 2024 ; 13 : e47280 . 10.2196/47280 PMC11137420 38748465

58 Nicolini D . The work to make telemedicine work: a social and articulative view . Soc Sci Med 2006 ; 62 : 2754 – 2767 . 16343724 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.001

59 Skär L Söderberg S . The importance of ethical aspects when implementing eHealth services in healthcare: a discussion paper . J Adv Nurs 2018 ; 74 : 1043 – 1050 . 29105151 10.1111/jan.13493

60 Dubois H Bergenmar M Härgestam M , et al. Patient participation in tele-emergencies – experiences from healthcare professionals in northern rural Sweden . Rural Remote Health Epub ahead of print 8 December 2022 ; 22 : 1 – 3 . 10.22605/RRH7404 36480908

61 Ärlebrant L Dubois H Creutzfeldt J , et al. Emergency care via video consultation: interviews on patient experiences from rural community hospitals in northern Sweden . Int J Emerg Med 2024 ; 17 : 109 . 39227787 10.1186/s12245-024-00703-4 PMC11370045

62 Eriksson L Lindström B Ekenberg L . Patients’ experiences of telerehabilitation at home after shoulder joint replacement . J Telemed Telecare 2011 ; 17 : 25 – 30 . 21075802 10.1258/jtt.2010.100317

63 Assing Hvidt E Kofod FG van den Heuvel J , et al. The obscured face in video consultations. A Levinasian analysis . Med Health Care Philos 2025 ; 28 : 1–12. 10.1007/s11019-025-10271-w PMC12380976 40285914

64 Ford J Reuber M . Comparisons of communication in medical face-to-face and teleconsultations: a systematic review and narrative synthesis . Health Commun 2024 ; 39 : 1012 – 1026 . 37092952 10.1080/10410236.2023.2201733

65 Gordon HS Solanki P Bokhour BG , et al. 'I’m not feeling like I’m part of the conversation’ patients’ perspectives on communicating in clinical video telehealth visits . J Gen Intern Med 2020 ; 35 : 1751 – 1758 . 32016705 10.1007/s11606-020-05673-w PMC7280396

66 Islind AS Snis UL Lindroth T , et al. The virtual clinic: two-sided affordances in consultation practice . Comput Supported Coop Work 2019 ; 28 : 435 – 468 .

67 Primholdt Christensen N Danbjørg DB . Use of video consultations for patients with hematological diseases from a patient perspective: qualitative study . J Participat Med 2018 ; 10 : e11089 . 10.2196/11089 PMC7434074 33052117

68 Kuhn KM . The constant mirror: self-view and attitudes to virtual meetings . Comput Human Behav 2022 ; 128 : 107110 .

69 Abramova O Gladkaya M Krasnova H . An unusual encounter with oneself: Exploring the impact of self-view on online meeting outcomes . In: ICIS 2021 Proceedings , 2021 , https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2021/is_future_work/is_future_work/16

Appendix 1. Search strategy

Appendix 2. Search strings

211011

PubMed

(telecommunications [mesh] OR telemedicine [mesh] OR “health personnel” [mesh] OR health [mesh] OR teleconferenc* [tiab] OR telehealth* [tiab] OR health* [tiab] OR telerehabilitation* [tiab] OR telecommunication* [All fields] OR “remote consultation*” [All fields] OR telemedicine [All fields] OR teleconsultation* [All fields] OR “tele consultation*” [All fields] OR tele-consultation* [All fields]) AND (videoconferencing [mesh] OR “video-based intervention*” [All fields] OR “video teleconferenc*” [All fields] OR videoconferenc* [All fields] OR “video conferenc*” [All fields] OR “video communication*"[All fields] OR “video consultation*” [All fields] OR “video telehealth*” [All fields] OR “video visit*” [All fields] OR “live video” [All fields] OR “real-time video” [All fields] OR “real time video” [All fields] OR “video call*” [All fields]) AND (“health care quality, access, and evaluation” [mesh] OR “professional-patient relations” [mesh] OR “nurse-patient relations” [mesh] OR “physician-patient relations” [mesh] OR “patient satisfaction” [mesh] OR “patient preference” [mesh] OR perception [mesh] OR “patient* experience*” [All fields] OR perception* [All fields] OR “professional-patient relation*” [All fields] OR “nurse-patient relation*” [All fields] OR “physician-patient relation*” [All fields] OR “patient* satisfaction*” [All fields] OR “patient* attitude*” [All fields] OR “patient* preference*” [All fields])

Search 2021-10-11

Number of records: 1063

CINAHL

(SU “health personnel” OR SU health OR teleconsultation* OR SU “tele consultation*” OR telerehabilitation* OR SU telehealth* OR TI teleconferenc* OR AB teleconferenc* OR TI health* OR AB health* OR TX telecommunication* OR TX “remote consultation*” OR TX telemedicine OR TX teleconsultation* OR TX “tele consultation*” OR TX tele-consultation*) AND (TX “video-based intervention*” OR TX “video teleconferenc*” OR TX videoconferenc* OR TX “video conferenc*” OR TX “video communication*” OR TX “video consultation*” OR TX “video telehealth*” OR TX “video visit*” OR TX “live video” OR TX “real-time video” OR TX “real time video” OR TX “video call*”) AND (MH “quality of health care+” OR TX “health care quality, access, and evaluation” OR TX “patient* experience*” OR TX perception* OR TX “professional-patient relation*” OR TX “nurse-patient relation*” OR TX “physician-patient relation*” OR TX “patient* satisfaction*” OR TX “patient* attitude*” OR TX “patient* preference*”)

Search 2021-10-11

Number of records: 504

PsycInfo

(SU “telecommunication media*” OR SU “teleconsultation*” OR SU “tele consultation*” OR SU “telemedicine” OR SU “health personnel” OR SU Health OR SU “telepsychiatry” OR SU “telepsychology” OR SU “online therapy” OR SU telerehabilitation* OR SU telehealth* OR TI “teleconferenc*” OR AB “teleconferenc*” OR TI health* OR AB health* OR TX telecommunication* OR TX “remote consultation*” OR TX telemedicine OR TX teleconsultation* OR TX “tele consultation*” OR TX tele-consultation*) AND (SU “audiovisual communications media” OR TX “video-based intervention*” OR TX “video teleconferenc*” OR TX videoconferenc* OR TX “video conferenc*” OR TX “video communication*” OR TX “video consultation*” OR TX “video telehealth*” OR

TX “video visit*” OR TX “live video” OR TX “real-time video” OR TX “real time video” OR TX “video call*”) AND (SU “client attitude*” OR SU “client satisfaction” OR TX “health care quality, access, and evaluation” OR TX “patient* experience*” OR TX perception* OR TX “professional-patient relation*” OR TX “nurse-patient relation*” OR TX “physician-patient relation*” OR TX “patient* satisfaction*” OR TX “patient* attitude*” OR TX “patient* preference*”)

Search 2021-10-11

Number of records: 165

Web of Science

(ALL = (“teleconsultation*” OR “tele consultation*” OR tele-consultation* OR “health personnel” OR telemedicine OR telecommunication* OR “remote consultation*”) OR TI = (teleconferenc* OR telehealth* OR health* OR telerehabilitation*) OR AB = (teleconferenc* OR telehealth* OR health* OR telerehabilitation)) AND (ALL = (videoconferenc* OR “video-based intervention*” OR “video teleconferenc*” OR videoconferenc* OR “video conferenc*” OR “video communication*” OR “video consultation*” OR “video telehealth*” OR “video visit*” OR “live video” OR “real-time video” OR “real time video” OR “video call*”)) AND (ALL = (“health care quality, access, and evaluation” OR “patient* experience*” OR perception* OR “professional-patient relation*” OR “nurse-patient relation*” OR “physician-patient relation*” OR “patient* satisfaction*” OR “patient* attitude*” OR “patient* preference*”) OR TS = (“health care” NEAR/3 (quality OR access OR evaluation)))

Search 2021-10-11

Number of records: 497

Cochrane Library

([mh telecommunications] OR [mh telemedicine] OR [mh “health personnel”] OR [mh health] OR teleconferenc*:ti,ab OR telehealth*:ti,ab OR health*:ti,ab OR telerehabilitation*:ti,ab OR telecommunication* OR “remote consultation*” OR telemedicine OR teleconsultation* OR “tele consultation*” OR tele-consultation*) AND ([mh videoconferencing] OR “video-based intervention*” OR “video teleconferenc*” OR videoconferenc* OR “video conferenc*” OR videocommunication* OR “video consultation*” OR “video telehealth*” OR “video visit*” OR “live video” OR “real-time video” OR “real time video” OR “video call*”) AND ([mh “health care quality, access, and evaluation”] OR [mh “professional-patient relations”] OR [mh “nurse-patient relations”] OR [mh “physician-patient relations”] OR [mh “patient satisfaction”] OR [mh “patient preference”] OR [mh perception] OR “patient* experience*” OR perception* OR “professional-patient relation*” OR “nurse-patient relation*” OR “physician-patient relation*” OR “patient* satisfaction*” OR “patient* attitude*” OR “patient* preference*”)

Search 2021-10-11

Number of records: 391 (−1 Special Collections exkluderades) = 390

240129 complementary search 2021 October – 2024 January

PubMed

(telecommunications [mesh] OR telemedicine [mesh] OR “health personnel” [mesh] OR health [mesh] OR teleconferenc* [tiab] OR telehealth* [tiab] OR health* [tiab] OR telerehabilitation* [tiab] OR telecommunication* [All fields] OR “remote consultation*” [All fields] OR telemedicine [All fields] OR teleconsultation* [All fields] OR “tele consultation*” [All fields] OR tele-consultation* [All fields]) AND (videoconferencing [mesh] OR “video-based intervention*” [All fields] OR “video teleconferenc*” [All fields] OR videoconferenc* [All fields] OR “video conferenc*” [All fields] OR “video communication*"[All fields] OR “video consultation*” [All fields] OR “video telehealth*” [All fields] OR “video visit*” [All fields] OR “live video” [All fields] OR “real-time video” [All fields] OR “real time video” [All fields] OR “video call*” [All fields]) AND (“health care quality, access, and evaluation” [mesh] OR “professional-patient relations” [mesh] OR “nurse-patient relations” [mesh] OR “physician-patient relations” [mesh] OR “patient satisfaction” [mesh] OR “patient preference” [mesh] OR perception [mesh] OR “patient* experience*” [All fields] OR perception* [All fields] OR “professional-patient relation*” [All fields] OR “nurse-patient relation*” [All fields] OR “physician-patient relation*” [All fields] OR “patient* satisfaction*” [All fields] OR “patient* attitude*” [All fields] OR “patient* preference*” [All fields])

Search 2024-01-29

Number of records: 367 (från oktober 2021 och framåt)

CINAHL

(SU “health personnel” OR SU health OR teleconsultation* OR SU “tele consultation*” OR telerehabilitation* OR SU telehealth* OR TI teleconferenc* OR AB teleconferenc* OR TI health* OR AB health* OR TX telecommunication* OR TX “remote consultation*” OR TX telemedicine OR TX teleconsultation* OR TX “tele consultation*” OR TX tele-consultation*) AND (TX “video-based intervention*” OR TX “video teleconferenc*” OR TX videoconferenc* OR TX “video conferenc*” OR TX “video communication*” OR TX “video consultation*” OR TX “video telehealth*” OR TX “video visit*” OR TX “live video” OR TX “real-time video” OR TX “real time video” OR TX “video call*”) AND (MH “quality of health care+” OR TX “health care quality, access, and evaluation” OR TX “patient* experience*” OR TX perception* OR TX “professional-patient relation*” OR TX “nurse-patient relation*” OR TX “physician-patient relation*” OR TX “patient* satisfaction*” OR TX “patient* attitude*” OR TX “patient* preference*”)

Search: 2024-01-29

Number of records: 479

PsycInfo

(SU “telecommunication media*” OR SU “teleconsultation*” OR SU “tele consultation*” OR SU “telemedicine” OR SU “health personnel” OR SU Health OR SU “telepsychiatry” OR SU “telepsychology” OR SU “online therapy” OR SU telerehabilitation* OR SU telehealth* OR TI “teleconferenc*” OR AB “teleconferenc*” OR TI health* OR AB health* OR TX telecommunication* OR TX “remote consultation*” OR TX telemedicine OR TX teleconsultation* OR TX “tele consultation*” OR TX tele-consultation*) AND (SU “audiovisual communications media” OR TX “video-based intervention*” OR TX “video teleconferenc*” OR TX videoconferenc* OR TX “video conferenc*” OR TX “video communication*” OR TX “video consultation*” OR TX “video telehealth*” OR

TX “video visit*” OR TX “live video” OR TX “real-time video” OR TX “real time video” OR TX “video call*”) AND (SU “client attitude*” OR SU “client satisfaction” OR TX “health care quality, access, and evaluation” OR TX “patient* experience*” OR TX perception* OR TX “professional-patient relation*” OR TX “nurse-patient relation*” OR TX “physician-patient relation*” OR TX “patient* satisfaction*” OR TX “patient* attitude*” OR TX “patient* preference*”)

Search 20240201

Number of records: 94

Web of Science

(ALL = (“teleconsultation*” OR “tele consultation*” OR tele-consultation* OR “health personnel” OR telemedicine OR telecommunication* OR “remote consultation*”) OR TI = (teleconferenc* OR telehealth* OR health* OR telerehabilitation*) OR AB = (teleconferenc* OR telehealth* OR health* OR telerehabilitation)) AND (ALL = (videoconferenc* OR “video-based intervention*” OR “video teleconferenc*” OR videoconferenc* OR “video conferenc*” OR “video communication*” OR “video consultation*” OR “video telehealth*” OR “video visit*” OR “live video” OR “real-time video” OR “real time video” OR “video call*”)) AND (ALL = (“health care quality, access, and evaluation” OR “patient* experience*” OR perception* OR “professional-patient relation*” OR “nurse-patient relation*” OR “physician-patient relation*” OR “patient* satisfaction*” OR “patient* attitude*” OR “patient* preference*”) OR TS = (“health care” NEAR/3 (quality OR access OR evaluation)))

Search 2024-01-29

Number of records: 499 (från och med oktober 2021-2024)

Cochrane Library

([mh telecommunications] OR [mh telemedicine] OR [mh “health personnel”] OR [mh health] OR teleconferenc*:ti,ab OR telehealth*:ti,ab OR health*:ti,ab OR telerehabilitation*:ti,ab OR telecommunication* OR “remote consultation*” OR telemedicine OR teleconsultation* OR “tele consultation*” OR tele-consultation*) AND ([mh videoconferencing] OR “video-based intervention*” OR “video teleconferenc*” OR videoconferenc* OR “video conferenc*” OR videocommunication* OR “video consultation*” OR “video telehealth*” OR “video visit*” OR “live video” OR “real-time video” OR “real time video” OR “video call*”) AND ([mh “health care quality, access, and evaluation”] OR [mh “professional-patient relations”] OR [mh “nurse-patient relations”] OR [mh “physician-patient relations”] OR [mh “patient satisfaction”] OR [mh “patient preference”] OR [mh perception] OR “patient* experience*” OR perception* OR “professional-patient relation*” OR “nurse-patient relation*” OR “physician-patient relation*” OR “patient* satisfaction*” OR “patient* attitude*” OR “patient* preference*”)

Search 2024-01-29

Number of records: 194

Appendix 3. Level of confidence according to CERQual approach