# Telehealth for Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare: Evidence Map of Effectiveness, Patient and Provider Experiences and Preferences, and Patient Engagement Strategies

## TL;DR

This study maps evidence on telehealth for sexual and reproductive healthcare, highlighting its effectiveness, patient and provider experiences, and engagement strategies in U.S. clinics.

## Contribution

The study provides a comprehensive evidence map of TeleSRH effectiveness and challenges, focusing on U.S. Title X-funded clinics.

## Key findings

- TeleSRH increases access and adherence to STI prevention, such as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.
- TeleSRH is comparable to in-person care for contraceptive care and patient satisfaction.
- TeleSRH may reduce travel time, clinic burden, and improve preventative screening rates.

## Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to systematically map evidence to inform best practices for sexual and reproductive healthcare delivered via telehealth (TeleSRH) in United States-based Title X-funded clinics. Methods: We searched three databases (2017–2025) for studies evaluating effectiveness, harms, patient and provider experiences, barriers/facilitators, and engagement strategies encompassing TeleSRH for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), contraceptive care/family planning (CC/FP), and sexual wellness, in countries with a human development index of ≥0.8. Results: From 5963 references and 436 articles, we included 142 eligible publications. TeleSRH use declined since the COVID-19 pandemic’s peak but remains higher than pre-pandemic. Evidence comes mostly from poor-quality studies. TeleSRH increases access and adherence to STI prevention (e.g., pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV). Tele-follow-up may safely facilitate HIV care continuity. For CC/FP, TeleSRH is comparable to in-person care for patient satisfaction and uptake; patients are less likely to select long-acting reversible contraception but post-initiation tele-follow-up may increase its continuation rates. Vasectomy completion rates may be similar between pre-procedural counseling via telehealth versus in-person. TeleSRH’s potential benefits might include reduced travel time, wait times, no-show rates, and clinic human resource burden (via tele-triaging) and increased preventative screening rates for STIs and non-communicable diseases, prescription refill rates, ability to receive confidential care in preferred settings, and rural/marginalized community outreach. Implementation challenges span technological and capital constraints, provider availability, staff capability building, restrictive policies, language incompatibility, and patient mistrust. Supplementing synchronous TeleSRH with asynchronous communication (e.g., mobile application) may improve continued patient engagement. Conclusions: Preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic TeleSRH can be effective, with high patient acceptability; however, effectiveness and adoption hinge on contextual factors outlined in this review.