Conference PaperPDF Available

The Virtual Doctor Is In: The Effect of Telehealth Visits on Patient Experience



COVID-19 has accelerated the adoption of telehealth. With this shift comes a need for empirically based research regarding the effect of telehealth on patient experience. The present study employed an online survey (N = 996) examining whether a patient's perceptions of a telehealth visit predicts (a) the likelihood that they will schedule a future telehealth visit, and (b) their recall of clinical information. Participants viewed a video of a real clinician delivering information on a COVID-19 antibody test and responded to demographic, socioemotional, and cognitive items. We found that for every 1-point increase in an individual’s satisfaction with their interaction with the doctor, they were .73 times more likely to revisit the doctor (p < .01). These results provide insight for researchers and medical professionals regarding patient perceptions of virtual encounters and suggest best practices to consider as we further integrate telehealth.
The Virtual Doctor Is In: The Effect of Telehealth Visits on Patient
Ja-Naé Duane
Bentley University
Morgan Stosic
University of Maine
Jonathan Ericson
Bentley University
Brigitte N. Durieux
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Justin J. Sanders
McGill University
Erryca Robicheaux
Bentley University
Danielle Blanch-Hartigan
Bentley University
COVID-19 has accelerated the adoption of
telehealth. With this shift comes a need for empirically
based research regarding the effect of telehealth on
patient experience. The present study employed an
online survey (N = 996) examining whether a patient's
perceptions of a telehealth visit predicts (a) the
likelihood that they will schedule a future telehealth
visit, and (b) their recall of clinical information.
Participants viewed a video of a real clinician
delivering information on a COVID-19 antibody test,
and responded to demographic, socioemotional, and
cognitive items. We found that for every 1-point
increase in an individual’s satisfaction with their
interaction with the doctor, they were .73 times more
likely to revisit the doctor (p < .01). These results
provide insight for researchers and medical
professionals regarding patient perceptions of virtual
encounters and suggest best practices to consider as
we further integrate telehealth.
1. Introduction
During the COVID-19 pandemic, patient and
clinician interactions through virtual telehealth visits
increased dramatically since 2019 [1,2]. For many,
this forced shift introduced a new medical practice
setting [3]. As a result, both clinicians and patients
have had to adjust their physical environments (e.g.,
home-based offices) for virtual visits [4]. The adoption
of telehealth has continued to increase despite the
relaxation of shelter-in-place mandates, and there are
indicators that telehealth is here to stay [3]. Although
recent research explores how clinicians conduct these
visits [5,6], there is little empirical evidence regarding
how these virtual encounters impact patient
Information technologies, such as telehealth
environments, provide opportunities for behavior
change support systems [7] that can foster positive
health outcomes [8]. However, measuring such health
behaviors within these digital systems can be a
challenge [7]. Researchers have indicated that patient
engagement and health outcomes can be improved
through IT platforms (e.g., telehealth) [9].
Additionally, recent research suggests that virtual
visits affect clinician behavior and communication
[10,11] compared to in-person visits. Recommended
behaviors such as maintaining a neutral posture and
eye contact can help provide patients with a "webside
manner" [6,12-14]. However, there is still a need for
more research that examines how these virtual
environments affect the patient and their experience.
Therefore, we ask the following research question:
does a patient's perceptions of a telehealth visit predict
(a) the likelihood that they will schedule future
telehealth encounters, and (b) the likelihood of
recalling clinical information? To address this
research question, we conducted an online study that
provided participants with a simulated telehealth
appointment where participants received information
about a COVID-19 antibody test from an actual
physician, and responded to demographic,
socioemotional, and cognitive questions.
This research contributes to the literature in two
ways. First, it provides much-needed empirical
evidence to this budding area of research. Secondly, it
provides insight to both researchers and clinicians
regarding experiential and cognitive impacts of
telehealth appointments.
Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences | 2022
Page 3845
(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
Section 1 provides a theoretical background for this
study. Section 2 outlines the research methodology.
Section 3 provides our results. Section 4 discusses our
observations based on our findings. Finally, Section 5
discusses the paper's implications for research and
practice and provides recommendations for future
1.1. Telehealth environments
Telehealth environments differ from traditional
clinical settings for several reasons. First, by being in
one's own environment during the experience, there is
a sense of familiarity [15] that both the patient and the
clinician experience. This provides an opportunity for
social connection [16] that may support the patient-
clinician relationship. For example, attending a virtual
visit from one’s home enhances the likelihood of self-
disclosure of thoughts and feelings [17,18], which may
not occur in a clinical setting. Finally, the sharing of
personal environments may shift the power dynamic
[15] between the patient and the clinician. The patient
is no longer in a traditional setting that is out of their
control. Instead, they are in an environment they are
familiar with, and they may feel more empowered due
to this shifted power dynamic [15].
Both patients and clinicians rely on non-verbal
cues [5]. For example, cues such as eye contact or
facial activity provide individuals with contextual
clues about how to interpret the information they are
receiving from the other person [19]. However, within
virtual environments, non-verbal cues may be reduced
[4] or distorted [20,21], which could lead to a loss of
pertinent information [22,23]. Technological factors
such as bandwidth and poor video resolution could
decrease patient satisfaction [4]. However, it is unclear
how these positive and negative aspects of the
telehealth experience as well as other perceptions of
care during the visit could influence recall and
intention to follow-up after a telehealth appointment.
1.2. The present study
In sum, previous research has primarily examined
how clinicians conduct telehealth visits [e.g., 5,6]. As
a result, we know little about whether a patient's
perceptions of a telehealth visit predict the likelihood
that they will schedule a future telehealth visit and the
likelihood that they will recall clinical information
presented during the visit. To examine this research
question, we conducted an online study in which
participants viewed a video of a real clinician
delivering information on a COVID-19 antibody test,
and responded to demographic, socioemotional, and
cognitive items. We used two ordered logistic
regression to test the following hypotheses:
(H1) The more positive a patient’s perceptions of their
telehealth visit, the higher the likelihood that they will
revisit the doctor in a telehealth environment.
(H2) The more positive a patient’s perceptions of their
telehealth visit, the more likely they will recall clinical
2. Methodology
2.1. Participants
Participants were recruited through Amazon
Mechanical Turk (MTurk). We conducted a sensitivity
power analysis using G*Power to identify the smallest
effect size we were powered to detect. For a linear
multiple regression F-test, we used the following input
parameters: α (two-sided) = .05, power = .80, number
of predictors = 5. This resulted in the power to detect
a small effect size (f2 = 0.01) [24]. A total of 1096
participants consented to participate in the study. 100
participants were excluded for not passing attention
check questions or reporting video player issues,
yielding a final sample size of N = 996 (65.6% M,
34.2% F; MAGE = 34.91 years, SDAGE = 11.13 years).
All participants provided their informed consent in
accordance with the requirements of Bentley
University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and
were compensated $0.50 for successfully completing
the study. The total time required to complete the study
was 15 minutes or less.
2.2. Procedure
This study utilized the analogue patient
methodology [25,26]. Participants were asked to
imagine themselves as a patient at a telehealth
appointment in which they would receive information
about a COVID-19 antibody test from an actual
Participants watched a 30-second video of a
clinician presenting information on a COVID-19
antibody test. The video of the physician was recorded
against a green screen so that the background could be
altered while holding the verbal and nonverbal
communication of the physician constant. Participants
were randomly assigned to view the video with one of
six backgrounds, which varied in the number of visible
objects (e.g., plants, family photos, certifications).
Page 3846
After watching the video, Participants completed a
survey regarding their impressions of the physician,
their memory for both the physician and the virtual
interaction, and demographic questions.
2.3. Measures
This study aimed to determine whether a patient's
perceptions of a telehealth visit predicted the
likelihood they would schedule future telehealth
encounters (H1), as well as the likelihood of recalling
clinical information presented during the encounter
(H2). In order to test these hypotheses, several
measures were employed. First, participants were
given five questions regarding their satisfaction with
the doctor (Interaction Satisfaction). They also rated
his overall communication (Doctor's Overall
Communication). Next, there were five questions on
the immersiveness (Immersion) of the interaction with
the doctor. All socioemotional responses were
gathered using 5-point scales based on previous
research [27]. Participants were asked to indicate the
likelihood of revisiting the doctor within a telehealth
environment (Revisit Doctor), on a 5-point scale from
1 (strongly agreeing with intending to revisit this
doctor) to 5 (strongly disagreeing with intending to
revisit this doctor).
Cognitive measures examined each participant’s
recall of the clinical information (Clinical
Information) that the doctor presented during the
telehealth experience (e.g., True or False: The
COVID-19 antibody test is negative in about 30% of
people who did have infection.). Additionally,
participants were asked their level of comfort with
telehealth (Telehealth Comfort). To indicate their most
recent telehealth appointment (Last Telehealth
Appointment), and to provide basic demographic
information. Finally, we coded the six different office
backgrounds in terms of the number of Environmental
Factors that were visible (e.g., family photos,
diplomas, books). The office background with the
least number of visible objects was coded a 1 while the
office background with the greatest number of visible
objects was coded a number 6.
2.4. Data analysis
There were two analyses conducted for this study.
First, to assess the likelihood of a participant revisiting
this doctor within a telehealth environment (H1), an
ordered logistic regression with robust standard errors
was used to conduct the analysis. An ordered logistic
regression is a model used for categorical dependent
variables. For example, when survey choices can be
answered as “never”, “monthly”, “weekly” or “daily”,
an ordered logit regression can be used for predicting
outcomes by more than one response category.
We also assessed the predicted likelihood of
recalling the information provided by the doctor (H2).
To do so, an ordered logit model with robust standard
errors was used to conduct the analysis. The dependent
variable, Clinical Information (e.g., “The test can be
used to diagnose active COVID-19 cases. True or
False?”), is a cognitive measure to assess the amount
of clinical information participants recall from the
interaction. Participants received 1 if no clinician
information was recalled, 2 if a quarter of the
information was recalled (Some Clinical Information),
3 if three-quarters of the information was recalled
(Most Clinical Information), and 4 if all the clinical
information was recalled. An alpha level of .10 was set
a priori for all statistical tests.
3. Results
3.1. Pearson correlations
Before conducting the ordered logit analysis on
the likelihood of a participant revisiting the doctor
within a telehealth environment, we computed Pearson
correlations between the main variables. Table 1
shows the resulting correlation matrix. All variables
had significant correlations (all ps < .05) except for the
environment variable, which had negligible
correlation. This lack of significance for the
environment variable may indicate multicollinearity
problems, which led to the exclusion of this variable
from the final logistic regression analyses. All other
variables were kept for the logit models due to
significance despite varying correlation strengths.
Table 1. Pearson correlations
(1) Revisit Doctor
(2) Interaction
(3) Comfort with
(4) Memory of
(5) Immersion
(6) Doctor's
(7) Last Telehealth
(8) Environmental
*** p<.01, ** p<.05, * p<.10
Page 3847
3.2. Likelihood of revisiting the doctor
Odds ratios of revisiting the doctor are reported in
Table 2. The overall ordered logit model was
statistically significant (pseudo-R2 = .468, p < .0001).
This suggests that most variables have at least
marginal effect sizes, and that satisfaction with the
interaction and the doctor's overall communication
had the most prominent effects. Consistent with H1,
the ordered logit model indicates that for every 1-point
increase in Interaction Satisfaction (e.g., “Overall,
how satisfied were you with the quality of care you
received from this doctor?”), the odds of actually
revisiting the doctor for those participants who
strongly agreed that they would revisit the doctor are
.73 times more likely than other participants (p < .01),
holding all other factors constant. In other words, the
odds of revisiting the doctor decrease as satisfaction
with the interaction decreases.
Regarding the Doctor's Overall Communication
(“How would you rate the overall communication by
this doctor?”), for every 1-point increase in the
communication rating, the odds of revisiting the
doctor for those who strongly agree that they would
revisit the doctor are .16 times more likely than other
participants (p < .01). As seen with this variable (Table
2), the correlation becomes negative when participants
who either somewhat agree that they would revisit this
doctor through those who somewhat disagree.
Surprisingly, those who somewhat disagree that they
would revisit this doctor have 12.4 times more odds of
revisiting the doctor for every 1-point increase in their
rating of the doctor’s overall communication quality.
These results are consistent with H1.
Regarding the relationship between Telehealth
Comfort (“How comfortable are you using
telehealth?”) and considering Revisiting the Doctor
(“I would visit this doctor again.”), the logit model
also indicates that those who reported feeling more
comfortable with telehealth are .07 times less likely to
revisit the doctor than those participants who indicated
they would strongly agree to Revisiting the Doctor (p
= .10). Although there was a positive and significant
correlation between those who are comfortable with
telehealth and their consideration to revisit, this was a
marginal effect (p > .10). Overall, these results are
consistent with H1.
Additionally, Interaction Satisfaction, Doctor's
Overall Communication, and Telehealth Comfort
proved significant (all p < .10). Both satisfaction with
the interaction and the doctor's communication were
significant (all p < .01), and the comfort with
telehealth variable was also marginally significant (p
< .10). Thus, consistent with H1, these results indicate
that how the patient’s perceptions of the doctor impact
the likelihood that they will revisit that doctor in a
telehealth environment. Furthermore, the doctor’s
ability to communicate effectively within this type of
environment and the individual’s comfort level with
telehealth will marginally impact their odds of
revisiting the doctor; although this finding is
consistent with H1, the results are marginal and
warrant further research.
Table 2. Odds ratios of revisiting a doctor
in a telehealth environment
Agree Nor
Memory of
Doctor's Overall
Last Telehealth
*** p<.01, ** p<.05, * p<.10
3.3. Likelihood of recalling clinical
Odds ratios for recalling clinical information are
reported in Table 3. The Clinical Information variable
was created through the sum of information the
participants retained. The overall model (Table 3) was
statistically significant (pseudo-R2 = .440, p < .0001).
Interaction Satisfaction, Immersion, and Telehealth
Comfort were highly significant (p < .001). The
indicates that as participants feel more immersed and
comfortable within the telehealth setting, that it affects
their level of satisfaction with the experience.
Page 3848
Table 3. Odds ratios of recalling clinical
information in telehealth environments
No Clinical
All Clinical
Doctor's Overall
Last Telehealth
*** p<.01, ** p<.05, * p<.10
When examining Interaction Satisfaction, for
every 1-point increase in the level of satisfaction, the
odds of recalling clinical information was most
prominent for those who recalled all the information at
.05 times more than individuals in the other categories
(p < .01), holding all factors constant. Not
surprisingly, individuals who did not recall any
clinical information during this study are predicted to
be 3 times less likely to recall clinical information in a
telehealth setting in the future. Thus, consistent with
H2, the more the individual is satisfied with the
encounter with the doctor, the more likely they are to
recall clinical information during that encounter.
Regarding the immersiveness of the experience,
we observed a negative effect for participants who
were only able to recall a quarter of the clinical
information provided (-0.025x odds, p < .01) and for
those who were unable to recall any information (-
0.019x odds, p < .01). However, for every 1-point
increase in Immersion, the odds of participants who
recalled all clinical information is .03 more likely than
those individuals in other categories (p <.01). Thus,
consistent with H2, these results suggest that as
participants feel more immersed within the telehealth
environment, their likelihood of retaining clinical
information also increases.
The impact that Telehealth Comfort has on the
probability of recalling clinical information indicates
that those who are comfortable with telehealth but
could not recall more than 1/4th (25%) of the clinical
information have a .03 (p < .01) greater likelihood of
recalling such information compared to individuals
who are not comfortable with telehealth (p < .05).
Finally, those who are comfortable with telehealth and
could recall at least half of the clinical information
provided have a 2-4% decrease in odds of recalling
clinical information versus those who identified as not
comfortable with telehealth (p < .05). This result is
both counterintuitive and may indicate that those who
are less comfortable with telehealth may be more
inclined to listen to the doctor closely than those
individuals who are comfortable in telehealth
In sum, results were generally consistent with H2
(the more positive a patient’s perceptions of their
telehealth visit, the more likely they will recall clinical
information). There is a correlation between how
satisfied an individual is with a telehealth encounter
and the information that is retained from the visit.
Furthermore, the more immersed the individual can be
within the experience, the more likely they are to retain
the information.
4. Discussion
The present study examined the relationship
between telehealth experiences and patients’
perceptions of the virtual clinical encounter. Though
recent research suggests that clinicians should
consider enhancing virtual environments for overall
patient satisfaction, the results of this study indicate
that the patient’s comfort with telehealth, perception
of the doctor’s communication, and satisfaction with
the virtual encounter may predict intentions to revisit
a doctor in a telehealth environment. We also found
that there very little evidence for spillover effects from
participants’ telehealth experiences prior to this study
in that the effect sizes were marginal and insignificant.
This may be due to telehealth environments being
relatively new for many individuals. Additionally,
since this doctor was a new doctor for the study
participants, they may have treated this telehealth
experience differently than they would if it was with a
doctor they had seen before.
Regarding cognitive responses, although
interaction satisfaction, the feeling of immersion
within the environment, and comfort with telehealth
were significant and may theoretically contribute to
the retention of clinical information [28,29], their
effects sizes were marginal and do not fully explain
whether a patient accurately recalled clinical
information in a telehealth encounter. However, our
findings do indicate that if an individual is slightly
uncomfortable with telehealth visits, then they are
more inclined to listen to the clinical information
presented and recall it.
Other work has demonstrated adequate
information recall among cancer patients in clinical
telehealth visits. For example, patients reported
Page 3849
whether they recall various information categories
being discussed, rather than recalled specific
information from that discussion. [30]. In in-person
clinical settings, other work has found information
recall to be unsatisfactory (cancer patients recalled
about 50% of information correctly) [31]. To assist
patients in recalling crucial clinical information,
doctors can summarize their recommendations in the
“open note” section of a patient’s chart or in a letter to
patients and other members of the care team, as is
common in other health systems (e.g., the NHS in the
United Kingdom). Another recommendation would be
to use “teach back” approaches with patients.
Research has demonstrated positive effects using such
approaches with patients [32-34]. Additionally,
clinicians may want to consider providing clinical
information in varying forms (e.g., written, visual
illustrations) to ensure that patients have the pertinent
information that they need from the clinician.
4.1. Limitations and future directions
This study has several limitations. Although
adequately powered, online samples may not
generalize to real patient populations. The COVID-19
antibody test context may have played a role in recall
and overall experience reported. The online format
and uniform encounter provided consistency across
participants but does not capture all the factors related
to intention to revisit a doctor, or predictors of recall.
We also cannot determine the causal direction of these
relationships. For example, recalling more clinical
information may cause analogue patients to also report
more positive experiences.
Telehealth platforms are designed and employed
in a variety of ways, thus limiting the present study’s
internal and external validity. Additionally, this study
did not examine how web connectivity or digital
interfaces may affect the interaction between the
doctor and the patient or the doctor's communication
of the clinical information. Future research should
leverage this variability that technology as it plays an
essential role in the patient's overall telehealth
experience. For example, researchers could research
the effects of telehealth platforms, as well as the use
experience of such platforms, on the patient’s
experience. Furthermore, future research can explore
whether a prior relationship with a doctor impacts the
patient's ability to retain clinician information within a
virtual environment, such as telehealth.
5. Conclusion
This paper contributes to both telehealth research
and practice by providing empirical evidence relevant
to this growing field. Our results suggests that a
patient’s experience of a telehealth visit may impact
their recall for clinical information and intentions to
seek follow-up care over telehealth. Our results also
suggest several avenues for future research, including
comparing the impact of different telehealth platforms
on patient experience and information recall. For
practitioners, our results suggest that telehealth
encounters may impact a patient’s perceptions and
impressions of care, as well as cognitive and
adherence-related outcomes. In particular, our results
suggest that improving the telehealth patient
experience may lead to more consistent follow-up
care. Telehealth is here to stay, and researchers must
support practitioners as they explore novel ways of
improving the overall patient experience and clinical
outcomes in these virtual environments.
6. References
[1] M. Erickson, “Stanford Medicine increases use of
televisits to help prevent spread of coronavirus”,
Stanford MedicineNews, March 30, 2020, Retrieve
[2] E. Valente, “Stanford Children’s Health Sees a Surge in
Telehealth Visits During Coronavirus Pandemic”,
Healthier, Happy Lives Blog, March 30, 2020,
Retrieve from:
[3] Doximity, “2020 State of Telemedicine Report”,
September 2020, Retrieve from:
[4] J. Duane, D. B. Hartigan, J. J. Sanders, E. Caponigro, E.
Robicheaux, B. Bernard, M. Podolski, and J. D.
Ericson, “Environmental Considerations for Effective
Telehealth Encounters: A Narrative Review and
Implications for Best Practice.” Telemedicine and e-
Health, 2021.
[5] K. M. McConnochie, “Webside Manner: A Key to
High-Quality Primary Care Telemedicine for All”,
Telemedicine and e-Health, 25(11), 2019, pp. 1007-
[6] I. S. Chua, V. Jackson, M. Kamdar, “Webside Manner
during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Maintaining Human
Connection during Virtual Visits”, Journal of
Palliative Medicine, 2020, forthcoming.
[7] H. Oinas-Kukkonen. “A foundation for the study of
behavior change support systems.” Personal and
Ubiquitous Computing, 17(6), 2012, pp. 12231235.
Page 3850
[8] T. Lehto, T., H. Oinas-Kukkonen. “Persuasive Features
in Web-Based Alcohol and Smoking Interventions: A
Systematic Review of the Literature.” Journal of
Medical Internet Research, 13(3), e46. 2011.
[9] S. Sawesi, M. Rashrash, K. Phalakornkule, J.S.
Carpenter, & J.F. Jones. “The Impact of Information
Technology on Patient Engagement and Health
Behavior Change: A Systematic Review of the
Literature.” JMIR Medical Informatics, 4(1), e1.,
[10] B. W. Henry, D. E. Block, J. R. Ciesla, B. A.
McGowan, and J. A. Vozenilek, “Clinician behaviors
in telehealth care delivery: a systematic review”,
Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and
Practice, 22(4), 2017, pp. 869-888.
[11] L. A. LeBlanc, D. C. Lerman, and M. P. Normand,
“Behavior analytic contributions to public health and
telehealth”, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
53(3), 2020, pp. 1208-18.
[12] M. B. Modic, K. Neuendorf, and A. K. Windover,
“Enhancing Your Webside Manner: Optimizing
Opportunities for Relationship-Centered Care in
Virtual Visits”, Journal of Patient Experience, 7(6),
2020, pp. 869-877.
[13] A. Mehta and B. K. Mathews, “Webside manner:
maskless communication”, Diagnosis (Berlin), 2021,
[14] O. Begasse de Dhaem and C. Bernstein, “Headache
Virtual Visit Toolbox: The Transition From Bedside
Manners to Webside Manners”, Headache, 60(8),
2020, pp. 1743-1746.
[15] Park B., An Introduction to Telemedicine; Interactive
Television for Delivery of Health Services, New York
University, Alternative Media Center, New York,
USA, 1974.
[16] O. K. Burmeister, D. Ritchie, A. Devitt, E. Chia, G.
Dresser, and R. Roberts, “The impact of telehealth
technology on user perception of wellbeing and social
functioning, and the implications for service
providers”, Australasian Journal of Information
Systems, 23, 2019.
[17] Jourard S. M., Self-Disclosure: An Experimental
Analysis of the Transparent Self, Wiley-Interscience,
New York, USA, 1971.
[18] J. W. Pennebaker, J. K. Kiecolt-Glaser, and R. Glaser,
“Disclosure of traumas and immune function: Health
implications for psychotherapy”, Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(2), 1988, pp.
[19] Mehrabian A., Nonverbal Communication, Aldine-
Atherton, Illinois, USA, 1972.
[20] S. Whittaker, “Rethinking video as a technology for
interpersonal communications: theory and design
implications”, International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 42(5), 1995, pp. 501-529.
[21] C. Heath and P. Luff, “Media Space and
Communicative Asymmetries: Preliminary
Observations of Video-Mediated Interaction”, Human-
Computer Interaction, 7(3), 1992, pp. 315-346.
[22] Knapp M. L., Nonverbal Communication in Human
Interaction (2nd ed.), Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York, USA, 1978.
[23] K. Dijkstra, M. Pieterse, and A. Pruyn, “Physical
environmental stimuli that turn healthcare facilities
into healing environments through psychologically
mediated effects: systematic review”, Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 56(2), 2006, pp. 166-181.
[24] F. Faul, E. Erdfelder, A. G. Lang, and A. Buchner,
“G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis
program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical
sciences”, Behavior Research Methods, 39, 2007, pp.
[25] Van Vliet, L. M., Van Der Wall, E., Albada, A.,
Spreeuwenberg, P. M., Verheul, W., & Bensing, J. M.
“The validity of using analogue patients in
practitionerpatient communication research:
systematic review and meta-analysis.” Journal of
General Internal medicine, 27(11), 2012. pp.1528-
[26] Blanch-Hartigan, D., Hall, J. A., Krupat, E., & Irish,
J. T. “Can naive viewers put themselves in the patients’
shoes?: reliability and validity of the analogue patient
methodology”. Medical care, 51(3), 2013. pp. e16-e21.
[27] K.M. Hill, D. Blanch-Hartigan D. “Physician gender
and apologies in clinical interactions.” Patient
Education and Counseling, 101(5), 2018, pp. 836-842.
[28] D. Falvo and P. Tippy, “Communicating information
to patients. Patient satisfaction and adherence as
associated with resident skill”, The Journal of Family
Practice, 26(6), 1988, pp. 643-pg. 647
[29] E. D. Ragan, A. Sowndararajan, R. Kopper, and D. A.
Bowman, “The Effects of Higher Levels of Immersion
on Procedure Memorization Performance and
Implications for Educational Virtual
Environments”, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments, 19(6), 2010, pp. 527543.
[30] S. Teicher, "The effects of telehealth on patient
satisfaction and information recall for breast cancer
survivors during COVID-19", Doctoral Projects, 136,
[31] R. P. Kessels, “Patients' memory for medical
information”, Journal of the Royal Society of
Medicine, 96(5), 2003,
pp. 219-222.
[32] B.A. Slater, Y. Huang, P. Dalawari. “The impact of
teach-back method on retention of key domains of
emergency department discharge instructions.” The
Journal of emergency medicine, 53(5), 2017, pp. e59-
[33] M. White, R. Garbez, M. Carroll, E Brinker, J. Howie-
Esquivel. “Is “teach-back” associated with knowledge
retention and hospital readmission in hospitalized
heart failure patients?” Journal of Cardiovascular
Nursing, 28(2), 2013, pp.137-46.
[34] J. Talevski, A. Wong Shee, B. Rasmussen, G. Kemp,
A. Beauchamp. “Teach-back: A systematic review of
implementation and impacts.” PloS one, 5(4), 2020.
Page 3851
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Full-text available
In the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019, virtual visits have become the primary means of delivering efficient, high-quality, and safe health care while Americans are instructed to stay at home until the rapid transmission of the virus abates. An important variable in the quality of any patient–clinician interaction, including virtual visits, is how adroit the clinician is at forming a relationship. This article offers a review of the research that exists on forming a relationship in a virtual visit and the outcomes of a quality improvement project which resulted in the refinement of a “Communication Tip Sheet” that can be used with virtual visits. It also offers several communication strategies predicated on the R.E.D.E. to Communicate model that can be used when providing care virtually.
Full-text available
Patients often have difficulty comprehending or recalling information given to them by their healthcare providers. Use of ‘teach-back’ has been shown to improve patients’ knowledge and self-care abilities, however there is little guidance for healthcare services seeking to embed teach-back in their setting. This review aims to synthesize evidence about the translation of teach-back into practice including mode of delivery, use of implementation strategies and effectiveness. We searched Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Embase and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies reporting the use of teach-back as an educational intervention, published up to July 2019. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed methodologic quality. Implementation strategies were extracted into distinct categories established in the Implementation Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Overall, 20 studies of moderate quality were included in this review (four rated high, nine rated moderate, seven rated weak). Studies were heterogeneous in terms of setting, population and outcomes. In most studies (n = 15), teach-back was delivered as part of a simple and structured educational approach. Implementation strategies were infrequently reported (n = 10 studies). The most used implementation strategies were training and education of stakeholders (n = 8), support for clinicians (n = 6) and use of audits and provider feedback (n = 4). Use of teach-back proved effective in 19 of the 20 studies, ranging from learning-related outcomes (e.g. knowledge recall and retention) to objective health-related outcomes (e.g. hospital re-admissions, quality of life). Teach-back was found to be effective across a wide range of settings, populations and outcome measures. While its mode of delivery is well-defined, strategies to support its translation into practice are not often described. Use of implementation strategies such as training and education of stakeholders and supporting clinicians during implementation may improve the uptake and sustainability of teach-back and achieve positive outcomes.
Full-text available
The aim of the project was to evaluate the use of telehealth equipment in the homes of older community-dwelling people, and to review its social and economic impact. A mixed methods approach was adopted, involving interviews, observation and Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. Overall, the greatest benefit was apparent in those participants with a low familiarity with technology and low digital literacy, where changes in behaviours to prevent an exacerbation of their condition was possible. The user interface design reduced concern about using the technology. Changes achieved were through better compliance with medication and associated understanding of the impact on their vital signs and hence daily activities. This represented an improved health literacy and the economic benefits appear to be linked to that. Less benefit was observed by those who had been self-monitoring previously. A greater focus on specific conditions and improved self-management could strengthen the evidence for targeted economic benefits.
Full-text available
Webside Manner: A Key to High-Quality Primary Care Telemedicine for All. Abstract Evaluation of telemedicine, including videoconferencing, specifically focused on primary care, has demonstrated quality as good as in-person care, reduced cost, elimination of socioeconomic disparities in access, and high levels of patient satisfaction. Distinctly different care models are currently marketed by provider organizations as telemedicine. Inclusion (or not) of videoconferencing capacity constitutes a distinguishing feature that is likely to impact effectiveness, but provider organizations, regulatory agencies, and payers have largely overlooked this distinction. Reassurance reducing patient and family anxiety has long been recognized as essential to both patient satisfaction and value of the medical profession. Interaction that reduces anxiety requires empathic communication. Interpersonal communication involves more than words; also key are intonation of voice, facial expression, body language, and capacity to accurately ‘‘read’’ emotions in others and to respond effectively. Telemedicine with videoconferencing has been shown to redress disparities in access while providing high-quality care that is well accepted by both patients and providers. Technical and practical barriers to inclusion of videoconferencing in telemedicine are minimal. Real-time video interaction, enabling ‘‘webside manner,’’ should be the default communication mode as telemedicine is increasingly accepted by patients, clinicians, and provider organizations as a tool to ensure high-quality primary care for all.
Background: Due to the reduction in-person visits, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to expansions in the use of telehealth technology to provide patient care, yet clinicians lack evidence-based guidance on how to most effectively use video communication to enhance patient experience and outcomes. Methods: A narrative review was conducted to describe environmental factors derived from research in social psychology and human-computer interaction (HCI) that may guide effective video-based clinician-patient telehealth communication. Results: Factors such as nonverbal cues, spatial proximity, professionalism cues, and ambient features play an important role in patient experience. We present a visual typology of telehealth backgrounds to inform clinical practice and guide future research. Discussion: A growing body of empirical evidence indicates that environmental cues may play an essential role in establishing psychological safety, improving patient experience, and supporting clinical efficacy in these virtual experiences. Conclusion: The expanded use of telehealth visits suggests the need for further research on the relative effects of these environmental factors on patient experience and outcomes.
Telemedicine has seen a rapid expansion lately, with virtual visits ushering in telediagnosis. Given the shift in the interpersonal and technical aspects of communications in a virtual visit, it is prudent to understand its effect on the patient-provider relationships. A range of interpersonal and communication skills can be utilized during telemedicine consultations in establishing relationships, and reaching a diagnosis. We propose a construct of "webside manner," a structured approach to ensure the core elements of bedside etiquette are translated into the virtual encounter. This approach entails the totality of any interpersonal exchange on a virtual platform, to ensure a clinician's presence, empathy and compassion is translated through this medium.
The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis is launching a special series on the topics of public health and telehealth. The special series begins with the articles in this issue and will continue for the next 2 to 3 issues with an open submission window until September 1, 2020. Behavior analysis has much to offer with respect to public health and much to gain from continued and expanded use of telehealth. This paper outlines the importance of these topics in the current crisis and in our ongoing evolution as a field. The historical literature in behavior analysis is reviewed for each topic along with suggestions for future research. The articles from the special series will be combined with historical contributions from JABA into a virtual issue. We encourage continued submissions on these topics even after the special series is completed as future papers will also be incorporated into the special issue.
The COVID‐19 health emergency has led many Headache providers to transition to virtual care overnight without preparation. We review our experience and discuss tips to bring humanity to the virtual visits.
Background: As the death rate numbers in the United States related to COVID-19 are in the tens of thousands, clinicians are increasingly tasked with having serious illness conversations. However, in the setting of infection control policies, visitor restrictions, social distancing, and a lack of personal protective equipment, many of these important conversations are occurring by virtual visits. Objective: From our experience with a multisite study exploring the effectiveness of virtual palliative care, we have identified key elements of webside manner that are helpful when conducting serious illness conversations by virtual visit. Results: The key elements and components of webside manner skills are proper set up, acquainting the participant, maintaining conversation rhythm, responding to emotion, and closing the visit. Other considerations that may require conversion to phone visits include persistent technical difficulties, lack of prerequisite technology to conduct virtual visits, patients who are too ill to participate, or who find virtual visits too technically challenging. Conclusions: Similar to bedside manner, possessing nuanced verbal and nonverbal webside manner skills is essential to conducting serious illness conversations during virtual visits.
Objective: We examine whether patients have a preference for affective (i.e., focused on patient's emotions) or cognitive (i.e., focused on the process that led to the error) apologies that are dependent on the apologizing physician's gender. We hypothesize patients will prefer gender-congruent apologies (i.e., when females offer affective apologies and males offer cognitive apologies). Methods: We randomly assigned analogue patients (APs: participants instructed to imagine they were a patient) to read a scenario in which a female or male physician makes an error and provides a gender-congruent or incongruent apology. APs reported on their perceptions of the physician and legal intentions. Results: An apology-type and gender congruency effect was found such that APs preferred apologies congruent with the gender of the apologizing physician. An indirect effect of congruency on legal intentions through physician perceptions was confirmed (b=-0.24, p=0.02). Conclusion: Our results suggest that physician gender plays a role in patient reactions to different apology types. Practice implications: Apology trainings should incorporate how physician characteristics can influence how patients assess and respond to apologies.