# Attitudes Toward Video Consultations From the Perspective of Physicians and Psychotherapists in German Outpatient Care After the COVID-19 Pandemic: Survey Study

## TL;DR

This study explores how physicians and psychotherapists in Germany view video consultations after the pandemic, finding that while interest is high, actual use remains low.

## Contribution

The study provides new insights into the adoption and perceived suitability of video consultations in German outpatient care post-pandemic.

## Key findings

- About 40% of physicians and psychotherapists offer video consultations at least once a month.
- Psychotherapists are significantly more likely to use video consultations compared to primary care providers.
- Most participants expressed interest in using video consultations for specific medical tasks like discussing test results and issuing prescriptions.

## Abstract

Although video consultations (VCs) are permitted in German outpatient care and have seen a notable rise during the COVID-19 pandemic, their use still does not seem to have become established in Germany.

This survey aims to evaluate the attitudes of physicians and psychotherapists with regard to the use of VC after the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular in the context of types of treatment and suitable medical fields.

A standardized questionnaire was sent out to all 34,095 physicians and psychotherapists in 4 German regions. The analysis consisted of both descriptive and inferential statistics. Subgroup analysis included gender, age groups, community size of practice location, VC experience, type and ownership of practice, and area of medical care. Binary logistic regression was conducted to determine whether physicians’ and psychotherapists’ individual factors, organizational factors, or area of medical care were associated with at least monthly VC provision or interest in VC provision.

The response rate was 17.9%, including a total of 5930 participants in the analysis. About 40% (2216/5863) of the physicians and psychotherapists surveyed stated that they offer VC at least once a month. In the area of medical care, the odds ratio (OR) of at least monthly VC provision in psychotherapeutic care was about 8.2 (95% CI 7.4‐1.64; P<.001) compared to primary care, whereas in specialist care, the odds for monthly VC provision were approximately 50% lower than in primary care (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.43-0.59; P<.001). Further, female participants have higher odds to provide VC at least once a month (OR 1.163, 95% CI 1.01‐1.34; P=.03). The odds for monthly VC provision in older age groups are approximately 60% higher than in the <40 years old age group (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32-0.52; P<.001). Around 80% (4347/5442) of the participants expressed interest in VC use. The most common occasions for which treatment by VC was reported to be suitable were discussing test results (1422/1896, 75.0%), taking the patient’s medical history (1195/2147, 55.7%), issuing prescriptions for drugs and remedies (793/1204, 65.9%), and the issuing of incapacity certificates for work (677/1042, 65.0%).

There has been an increase in the self-reported uptake of VC among physicians and psychotherapists compared to prepandemic levels, although this remains at a relatively low level in primary and specialist care. A significant proportion of doctors and psychotherapists have expressed an interest in using VC after the pandemic period. However, this self-reported use is not yet reflected in actual usage data, suggesting the need for further investigation into the underlying factors influencing the gap and identifying potential enablers. Further, these self-assessments by service providers on suitable types of treatment and suitable medical fields can inform political decision-making.