As researchers working in the field of digital technologies in general practice, we did not recognise the landscape described in this editorial.1 Lumping together approaches to healthcare delivery on the basis of them having the common element of being a technology implies an assumption that their effectiveness lies with the technology, which evidence indicates is not the case.
Most worrying is the claim that ‘it makes sense to get on with it and transform our conventional face-to-face delivery of care in general practice to modes of TECS that meet patients’ needs and preferences as well as being more effective and productive for general practice teams — mirroring how people have converted to using technology in their everyday lives’. Evidence from research shows that in fact technology-mediated consultations may lead to more work for GPs, and are not necessarily preferred by patients.2–7 For several types of technology-mediated interactions there is not enough high-quality evidence to be able to claim a transformative impact.8,9
There is a widely held perception that, when it comes to technology, evidence is unimportant and an assumption that all consequences of use are positive, in a way that would be considered completely unacceptable for other interventions such as pharmaceuticals. Deciding to proceed with something that does not have an evidence base, or goes against the evidence base, is irresponsible and does not represent good practice or commissioning. Sadly, it is commonplace.
We urge those interested in using or commissioning technological approaches to healthcare delivery in their own practice to consider each technology type on its own merits, with reference to the (growing) research evidence base for their use.
- © British Journal of General Practice 2018
REFERENCES
- 1.↵
- 2.↵
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.↵
- 8.↵
- 9.↵
