Evaluation of Telemedicine Consultations Using Health Outcomes and User Attitudes and Experiences: Scoping Review

Background: Despite a recent rise in adoption, telemedicine consultations retention remains challenging, and aspects around the associated experiences and outcomes remain unclear. The need to further investigate these aspects was a motivating factor for conducting this scoping review. Objective: With a focus on synchronous telemedicine consultations between patients with nonmalignant chronic illnesses and health care professionals (HCPs), this scoping review aimed to gain insights into (1) the available evidence on telemedicine consultations to improve health outcomes for patients, (2) the associated behaviors and attitudes of patients and HCPs, and (3) Methods: PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guided the scoping review process. Inclusion criteria were (1) involving adults with nonmalignant, noncommunicable chronic conditions as the study population; (2) focusing on health outcomes and experiences of and attitudes toward synchronous telemedicine consultations between patients and HCPs; and (3) conducting empirical research. A search strategy was applied to PubMed (including MEDLINE), CINAHL Complete, APA PsycNet, Web of Science, IEEE, and ACM Digital. Screening of articles and data extraction from included articles were performed in parallel and independently by 2 researchers, who corroborated Results: Overall, 4167 unique articles were identified from the databases searched. Following multilayer filtration, 19 (0.46%) studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for data extraction. They investigated 6 nonmalignant chronic conditions, namely chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, ulcerative colitis, hypertension, and congestive heart failure, and the telemedicine consultation modality varied in each case. Most observed positive health outcomes for patients with chronic conditions using telemedicine consultations. Patients generally favored the modality's convenience, but concerns were highlighted around cost, practical logistics, and thoroughness of clinical examinations. The majority of HCPs were also in favor of the technology, but a minority experienced reduced job satisfaction. Supplemental technological assistance was identified in relation to technical considerations, improved remote workflow, and training in remote care use. Conclusions: For patients with noncommunicable chronic conditions, telemedicine consultations are generally associated with positive health outcomes that are either directly or indirectly related to their ailment, but sustained improvements remain unclear. These modalities also indicate the potential to empower such patients to better manage their condition. HCPs and patients tend to be satisfied with remote care experience, and most are receptive to the modality as an option. Assistance from supplemental technologies mostly resides in addressing technical issues, and additional modules could be integrated to address challenges relevant to patients and HCPs. However, positive outcomes and attitudes toward the modality might not apply to all cases, indicating that telemedicine consultations are more appropriate as options rather than replacements of in-person visits.