Background The use of web-based services within primary care (PC) in the National Health Service in England is increasing, with medically underserved populations being less likely to engage with web-based services than other patient groups. Digital facilitation—referring to a range of processes, procedures, and personnel that seek to support patients in the uptake and use of web-based services—may be a way of addressing these challenges. However, the models and impact of digital facilitation currently in use are unclear. Objective This study aimed to identify, characterize, and differentiate between different approaches to digital facilitation in PC; establish what is known about the effectiveness of different approaches; and understand the enablers of digital facilitation. Methods Adopting scoping review methodology, we searched academic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and gray literature published between 2015 and 2020. We conducted snowball searches of reference lists of included articles and articles identified during screening as relevant to digital facilitation, but which did not meet the inclusion criteria because of article type restrictions. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by 2 reviewers. Data from eligible studies were analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach. Results A total of 85 publications were included. Most (71/85, 84%) were concerned with digital facilitation approaches targeted at patients (promotion of services, training patients to improve their technical skills, or other guidance and support). Further identified approaches targeted PC staff to help patients (eg, improving staff knowledge of web-based services and enhancing their technical or communication skills). Qualitative evidence suggests that some digital facilitation may be effective in promoting the uptake and use of web-based services by patients (eg, recommendation of web-based services by practice staff and coaching). We found little evidence that providing patients with initial assistance in registering for or accessing web-based services leads to increased long-term use. Few studies have addressed the effects of digital facilitation on health care inequalities. Those that addressed this suggested that providing technical training for patients could be effective, at least in part, in reducing inequalities, although not entirely. Factors affecting the success of digital facilitation include perceptions of the usefulness of the web-based service, trust in the service, patients’ trust in providers, the capacity of PC staff, guidelines or regulations supporting facilitation efforts, and staff buy-in and motivation. Conclusions Digital facilitation has the potential to increase the uptake and use of web-based services by PC patients. Understanding the approaches that are most effective and cost-effective, for whom, and under what circumstances requires further research, including rigorous evaluations of longer-term impacts. As efforts continue to increase the use of web-based services in PC in England and elsewhere, we offer an early typology to inform conceptual development and evaluations. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020189019; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189019

Background Telephone triage is a service innovation in which every patient asking to see a general practitioner or other primary care professional calls the general practice and usually speaks to a receptionist first, who records a few details. The patient is then telephoned back by the general practitioner/primary care professional. At the end of this return telephone call with the general practitioner/primary care professional, either the issue is resolved or a face-to-face appointment is arranged. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telephone triage was designed and used in the UK as a tool for managing demand and to help general practitioners organise their workload. During the first quarter of 2020, much of general practice moved to a remote (largely telephone) triage approach to reduce practice footfall and minimise the risk of COVID-19 contact for patients and staff. Ensuring equitable care for people living with multiple long-term health conditions (‘multimorbidity’) is a health policy priority. Objective We aimed to evaluate whether or not the increased use of telephone triage would affect access to primary care differently for people living with multimorbidity than for other patients. Methods We used data from the English GP Patient Survey to explore the inequalities impact of introducing telephone triage in 154 general practices in England between 2011 and 2017. We looked particularly at the time taken to see or speak to a general practitioner for people with multiple long-term health conditions compared with other patients before the COVID-19 pandemic. We also used data from Understanding Society, a nationally representative survey of households from the UK, to explore inequalities in access to primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic (between April and November 2020). Results Using data from before the COVID-19 pandemic, we found no evidence (p = 0.26) that the impact of a general practice moving to a telephone triage approach on the time taken to see or speak to a general practitioner was different for people with multimorbidity and for people without. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we found that people with multimorbidity were more likely than people with no long-term health conditions to have a problem for which they needed access to primary care. Among people who had a problem for which they would normally try to contact their general practitioner, there was no evidence of variation based on the number of conditions as to whether or not someone did try to contact their general practitioner; whether or not they were able to make an appointment; or whether they were offered a face-to-face, an online or an in-person appointment. Limitations Survey non-response, limitations of the specific survey measures of primary care access that were used, and being unable to fully explore the quality of the telephone triage and consultations were all limitations. Conclusions These results highlight that, although people with multimorbidity have a greater need for primary care than people without multimorbidity, the overall impact for patients of changing to a telephone triage approach is larger than the inequalities in primary care access that exist between groups of patients. Future work Future evaluations of service innovations and the ongoing changes in primary care access should consider the inequalities impact of their introduction, including for people with multimorbidity. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND The use of web-based services within primary care (PC) in the National Health Service in England is increasing, with medically underserved populations being less likely to engage with web-based services than other patient groups. <i>Digital facilitation</i>—referring to a range of processes, procedures, and personnel that seek to support patients in the uptake and use of web-based services—may be a way of addressing these challenges. However, the models and impact of digital facilitation currently in use are unclear. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to identify, characterize, and differentiate between different approaches to digital facilitation in PC; establish what is known about the effectiveness of different approaches; and understand the enablers of digital facilitation. METHODS Adopting scoping review methodology, we searched academic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and gray literature published between 2015 and 2020. We conducted snowball searches of reference lists of included articles and articles identified during screening as relevant to digital facilitation, but which did not meet the inclusion criteria because of article type restrictions. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by 2 reviewers. Data from eligible studies were analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS A total of 85 publications were included. Most (71/85, 84%) were concerned with digital facilitation approaches targeted at patients (promotion of services, training patients to improve their technical skills, or other guidance and support). Further identified approaches targeted PC staff to help patients (eg, improving staff knowledge of web-based services and enhancing their technical or communication skills). Qualitative evidence suggests that some digital facilitation may be effective in promoting the uptake and use of web-based services by patients (eg, recommendation of web-based services by practice staff and coaching). We found little evidence that providing patients with initial assistance in registering for or accessing web-based services leads to increased long-term use. Few studies have addressed the effects of digital facilitation on health care inequalities. Those that addressed this suggested that providing technical training for patients could be effective, at least in part, in reducing inequalities, although not entirely. Factors affecting the success of digital facilitation include perceptions of the usefulness of the web-based service, trust in the service, patients’ trust in providers, the capacity of PC staff, guidelines or regulations supporting facilitation efforts, and staff buy-in and motivation. CONCLUSIONS Digital facilitation has the potential to increase the uptake and use of web-based services by PC patients. Understanding the approaches that are most effective and cost-effective, for whom, and under what circumstances requires further research, including rigorous evaluations of longer-term impacts. As efforts continue to increase the use of web-based services in PC in England and elsewhere, we offer an early typology to inform conceptual development and evaluations. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020189019; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189019