| Author, year | Country study conducted | Study design | Participants | Quality assessment(criteria met) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | Primary care staff | ||||
| Atherton et al, 201820 | UK | Ethnographic, case study | 39 | 45 | High 5/5 |
| Brant et al, 201611 | UK | Cross-sectional, mixed methods | N/A | 319 | High 5/5 |
| Glaser et al, 201036 | US | Cross sectional Survey | 737 | N/A | High 4/5 — derivation of findings from data not ideal due to length survey, subsequently final survey omits several questions |
| Hatton et al, 201837 | US | Cross-sectional survey | 57 (26 VC, 31F2F) | N/A | High 4/5 — limited generalisability of patient population. |
| Polinski et al, 201638 | US | Cross-sectional survey | 1734 | N/A | High 5/5 |
| Powell et al, 201739 | US | Qualitative interviews | 19 | N/A | High 5/5 |
| Stahl and Dixon 201040 | US | Randomised control trial | 175 | 4 | High 4/5 – no blinding carried out |
F2F = face to face. N/A = not applicable. VC = video consultation.