Patients’ and physicians’ experiences with remote consultations in primary care, during the covid-19 pandemic: a multi-method rapid review of the literature.

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries implemented remote consultations in primary care to protect patients and staff from infection.AimThe aim of this review was to synthesise the literature exploring patients’ and physicians’ experiences with remote consultations in primary care, during the pandemic, with the further aim of informing their future delivery.Design & settingRapid literature review.MethodWe searched PubMed and PsychInfo for studies that explored patients’ and physicians’ experiences with remote consultations in primary care. To determine the eligibility of studies, we reviewed their titles and abstracts, prior to the full paper. We then extracted qualitative and quantitative data from those that were eligible, and synthesised the data using thematic and descriptive synthesis.ResultsA total of twenty-four studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Most were performed in the United States of America (n=7, 29%) or Europe (n=7, 29%). Patient and physician experiences were categorised into perceived ‘advantages’ and ‘issues’. Key advantages experienced by patients and physicians included: ‘Reduced risk of COVID-19’ and ‘Increased convenience’, while key issues included: ‘a lack of confidence in / access to required technology’ and a ‘loss of non-verbal communication’, which exacerbated clinical decision making.ConclusionThis review identified a number of advantages and issues experienced by patients and physicians using remote consultations in primary care. The results suggest that, while remote consultations are more convenient, and protect patients and staff against COVID-19, they result in the loss of valuable non-verbal communication, and are not accessible to all.

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? • International reviewers need to provide excellent feedback on the submitted articles after carefully analyzing merits of the paper with regards to scope, applications, research methodology, experimental techniques, data interpretation and grammar. • Authors were asked to revise their original manuscripts in alignment with the reviewers’ comments and suggestions for publication. • An opportunity will be given to the authors to resubmit their manuscripts after revisions. • Conference submission management system: http://www.academicconf.com/Identity/Account/Login?confName=wre2021 • Number of submissions received: 138 full paper submissions and 262 abstract submissions • Number of submissions sent for review: 78 full paper submissions • Number of submissions accepted: 25 full paper submissions • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 32.05%. • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 reviewers • Total number of reviewers involved: about 150 reviewers, please check http://paper.academicconf.com/reviewers.aspx?confname=wre2021 • Any additional info on review process: We used Ithenticate to check the plagiarism issue during the review process • Contact person for queries: Prof. Dr. Chih-Huang Weng I-Shou University, Taiwan [email protected]

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: Iconf submission system • Number of submissions received: 50 papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 50 papers • Number of submissions accepted: 35 papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 70% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 papers • Total number of reviewers involved: 28 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: 1. Preliminary Review When we received authors’ paper(abstract and full paper), we will submit the paper to auditing department for checking, the auditing department will review the content, theme, format and grammers. 2. The full papers passed the first review will be reviewed again by conference technical committees from the following aspects: Originality, Innovation, Technical Soundness, Applicability, Clarity of presentation and Relevance. 3. After paper passed the first review and the second review, we will send the notification and review form. 4. Only if the paper revised according to the review form, it can be published. Contact person for queries: Prof. Ngai Weng Chan Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia [email protected]

Peer Review Declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. Type of peer review: All submitted full papers were peer-reviewed by two reviewers. The acceptance was granted if the recommendations from the reviewers are positive. The criteria are based on compliance with the directions of the International Scientific Conference “Regions of new development: the current state of natural complexes and their protection”, technical and scientific content and article submission guidelines. There were three review processes: Initial Review, Peer Review and Recommendation. Initial Review The editor evaluates each manuscript in the submission track to determine if its topic and content are suitable for consideration for the conference before being reviewed. Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum criteria are returned to the authors. Peer Review Manuscripts that pass the initial review by the editors will be sent to two (2) referees based on their expertise. Reviewer identities are concealed from the author, and throughout the review process. The reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, the correspondence of the name and its content, informative content of the abstract, adequacy and correctness of citation of works in this field, confirmation of conclusions and conclusions by the data of the work, compliance, quality of references and design of the list of references. Reviewers were asked to fill out a review form and submit it within two weeks. After collecting all the reviews of the articles, the editors make a recommendation on the acceptability of the manuscript. Acceptance Decision Based on the reviewer’s comments, the editor makes a final decision on the acceptability of the manuscript and communicates to the authors the decision, along with reviewers’ reports. Based on the reviewer’s comments, the editor makes a final decision on the acceptability of the manuscript and communicates to the authors the decision, along with reviewers’ reports. Conference submission management system: Participants submitted an application for participation in the conference by sending it to the conference address: [email protected] After submitting the application, the author sent his article to the conference address: [email protected] Number of submissions received: 82 articles received Number of submissions sent for review: 70 articles submitted for review Number of submissions accepted: 44 articles were accepted by the scientific committee of the conference Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 44/82x100 = 53,7% Average number of reviews per paper: On average, two reviews per article Total number of reviewers involved: 30 reviewers Any additional info on review process: The review process was conducted using the e-mail of the organizing committee of the conference and the e-mail of the reviewers. The invitation to review the full paper was sent by email. Each full paper submitted was sent to two (2) reviewers to assess the full paper based on sections as follows: 1. Compliance of the content of the article with the profile of the publication. 2. The originality of the full paper. 3. Whether the work has previously been published in other journals. 4. Adequacy of consideration and correctness of citation of work in this field. 5. The correspondence of the name and its content. 6. Informative content of the report. 7. The quality of the drawings. 8. The quality of the tables in terms of content. 9. Confirmation of conclusions and conclusions by the data of the work. 10. Compliance, quality of references and design of the list of references. 11. The need to clarify the conclusions. 12. Strengths and weaknesses of the article in terms of content. 13. General evaluation of the article by reviewers. 14. Reviewer’s recommendations, accepted or rejected article. 15. The reviewer’s specific comment to the author of the article. All the comments by the reviewer were sent to the author to do the correction within two (2) weeks. The author needs to submit the corrected version of the full paper together with the checklist of corrections. The editor checked if the authors made all corrections. After that, the finished article was sent to the author for final verification before being sent to the publisher. Contact person for queries: Interim Director, Sc.D. (Biology), IWEP FEB RAS Maria V. Kryukova E-mail: [email protected]

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double-blind review process • Conference submission management system: Submission through conference website for abstract and secretariat official email for full paper, [email protected] PIC: Aryani [email protected] PIC: Fathimah Handayani • Number of submissions received: 89 • Number of submissions sent for review: 88 • Number of submissions accepted: 78 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 87.6% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 35 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Name : Aryani/Fathimah Handayani Affiliation : Center for Standardization of Sustainable Forest Management Instruments, Bogor, Indonesia Email : [email protected]/[email protected]

Peer Review Declaration Form Guidance

On the following page you will find the declaration form. • Please answer each question. • You should submit the form along with the rest of your submission files. • The deadline is the submission date written in your publishing agreement. All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. We will published the information you provide as part of your proceedings. Peer review declaration All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double-blind The 2nd International Symposium on Arboriculture in the Tropics: Trees and Human Health (The 2nd ISATrop2021) Editorial team used a double-blind review, where both the reviewer (scientific committee) and author identities were concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Only the editor knows the name of this reviewer and author. The list of Scientific committees has been determined before the symposium takes place and was ratified in the form of a Letter of Assignment. • Conference submission management system: The registration mechanism for the 2nd ISATrop2021 for participants, both non-presenters and oral presenters was carried out via online submission with the form provided on the arboriculture website ( https://arborikultur.ipb.ac.id/registration/ ). Abstracts for presenters are also uploaded when filling out the registration form. Speakers and participants can monitor and communicate with symposium organizers via email [email protected] and WhatsApp with contact person Ulfa Adzkia, S.Hut, M.Si as the symposium secretary (+62 822 6245 4154). Participants who have presented their papers at the 2nd ISATrop2021 on 21-22 June 2021, can then submit full papers via email [email protected] to the 2nd ISATrop2021 Editorial Team. • Number of submissions received: 62 • Number of submissions sent for review: 53 • Number of submissions accepted: 53 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 85.48% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 papers • Total number of reviewers involved: 27 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: - Full papers that have been received by the 2nd ISATrop2021 Editorial Team via email [email protected] from the participants have been going through a peer review mechanism as follows: 1. The Editor Team allocates 1-3 papers to the 2nd ISATrop2021 Scientific Committees (reviewers). 2. Each full paper along with the review form was sent to each reviewer via email [email protected]. 3. The review and revision process were continued until the full paper is declared “Accepted by No Revision” by the reviewer. 4. Full Paper that has been Accepted by Revision, then processed for plagiarism checking by TURNITIN, proofread checking by the proofreader team, and layout checking by the layout team. 5. While waiting for the proof read and layout check results, the author was asked to submit a “Statement of Originality form” via email. The form template was provided by the editor team. 6. The results of the proofread and layout in the form of “Galley Proof Draft” were then sent back to the author via email. 7. Galley Proof Draft that has been checked and corrected by the author, then sent back to the editor team via email. 8. The final layout team then rechecks the full paper to ensure that the format is in accordance with the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science format. • Contact person for queries: Name : Fifi Gus Dwiyanti Affiliation: Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, IPB University Email : [email protected]

Peer Review Declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administrated by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standard expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing • Type of peer review : Single-blind • Conference submission management system : Konfrenzi (Conference Management System) • Number of submissions received 152 • Number of submissions sent for review 102 • Number of submission accepted 91 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 59.86 % • Average number of review per paper 2 • Total number of reviewers involved 20 • Any additional info on review process: Review Timeline: 1. The manuscripts sent to the guest editors for initial checking, including format, similarity, and language quality. 1st round = Abstract paper submission : 1th June - 14th June 2021 Abstract acceptance notification : 17th June 2021 Full paper submission : 21th June - 10th July 2021 Payment : 11th August - 16th August 2021 2st round = Abstract paper submission : 15th June - 12th July 2021 Abstract acceptance notification : 15th July 2021 Full paper submission : 19th July - 1st August 2021 Payment : 30th August - 5th September 2021 2. The manuscripts which is accepted by the editors, were sent to the reviewer for substantial evaluation. Among 102 manuscripts that were reviewed, 91 manuscripts were accepted for submitting to IOP EES. The manuscripts were sent back to the authors 1st round = Review result notification : 22th July 2021 2st round = Review result notification : 14th August 2021 3. The authors sent the manuscripts for confirming the revisions to the guest editor 1st round = Revised paper submission : 26th July - 09th August 2021 2st round = Revised paper submission : 17th August - 28th August 2021 4. The guest editor asked the authors for signing the transfer agreement and answering the editorial comment (if any) Authors transfer agreement : 20th September 2021 - 27th September 2021 5. The guest editor performed layout format, similarity, and language check. Second check : 27th September 2021 - 8th October 2021 6. The manuscripts were transferred to IOP EES IOP transfer : 9th October 2021 • Contact person for queries: Bimastyaji Surya Ramadan ([email protected]) Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Diponegoro

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind • Conference submission management system: We conduct paper submission through open conference system (http://conference.unhas.ac.id/ocs/index.php/bctb/2021/login) and the manuscript from author has submitted before the conference through the conference website (https://bctb.unhas.ac.id/) • Number of submissions received: Total received abstract = 251 titles • Number of submissions sent for review: 231 titles for abstract • Number of submissions accepted: 138 titles of fullpaper from 231 titles of fullpaper submitted • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 59.7 % • Average number of reviews per paper: 7- 8 papers per reviewer • Total number of reviewers involved: 18 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: There are some steps on review process 1. Abstract review and acceptance At the begin, the abstract is submitted by the online system which is available on the conference page. The submitted abstracts are then collected by the committee for review one by one regarding the format, language and suitability of the conference scope. The abstract review was carried out by an internal reviewer. If there are any discrepancies, the abstract will be sent back to participants via email. 2. Submission of Full Paper Secondly, uploading of full paper may only be done by participants who attend and present their research activities during the conference. This upload and revision activity was carried out on July 25 - September 15 2021 3. Revision of Full Paper At the revision stage, participants will be requested to make revisions based on the input given by the reviewer, this input is generally in the form of format, language and continuity of each discussion. 4. Peer review of Full Paper At the Fourth stage, full paper previously submitted through system were reviewed following a single blind peer review process. The papers were sent to reviewer that consisted of 18 reviewers according to topic of the papers and reviewer’s competency. Review was conducted on content, language, and format of the paper based on IOP Conference Series. At this stage, Reviewer submit a decision for the acceptance of the papers for publication in IOP Conference Series. 5. Revision of Reviewed Full Paper As the end, the submitted papers were then subjected to proofread stage and check for similarity using Turnitin program. Subsequently, papers were prepared for submission to IOP Conference Series. • Contact person: Mukrimin Mukrimin Department of Forestry, Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia [email protected]

Peer review declaration

All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Single-blind The review process for ICMScE 2021 is Single Blind. Participants’ articles are sent to reviewers automatically through the conference management system (CMS) according to their expertise. Reviewers provide suggestions to the author through the comments column on the CMS. • Conference submission management system: Online submission management system (http://science.conference.upi.edu/icmsce2021/registration-submission/) • Number of submissions received: 540 received • Number of submissions sent for review: 451 sent for review • Number of submissions accepted: 144 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): (144/451) x 100 = 31,93% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 times • Total number of reviewers involved: 20 reviewers and 10 editors • Any additional info on review process: The review process is conducted in 4 stages: 1. Abstract review by the editor 2. Full paper review by the reviewer 3. Second review by the reviewer 4. Similarity check by the editor 5. Layout review by the editor • Contact person for queries (please include: name, affiliation, institutional email address) Dr. Achmad Samsudin +6285225709383 [email protected] Department of Physics Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia

Peer review declaration (STACLIM 2021)

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind The review process is conducted in single-blind method that the reviewers have access to the name(s) of author(s) while author is not being informed on the name of the reviewer(s). • Conference submission management system: EDAS Conference and Journal Management System Link: https://edas.info/index.php?c=28219 • Number of submissions received: 110 (Total number of papers) • Number of submissions sent for review: 72 (Final number of papers reviewed) • Number of submissions accepted: 60 (Final number of papers after acceptance) • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 54.5% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3.25 Each paper have gone through at least two stages of review, namely abstract review, and full manuscript review, while papers with major and minor revision received additional 1 to 2 rounds of reviews. • Total number of reviewers involved: 24 • Any additional info on review process: ∘ First-stage of peer review was done on the submitted abstract; only those which are accepted will be prompted for full paper submission. ∘ The full paper needed to achieve similarity index of less than 30% before it could be sent out for the second-stage rigorous peer review; only papers that have properly revised and addressed the comments from editors and reviewers could be accepted and proceeded for acceptance, hence publication in the IOP Conference series: Earth and Environmental Science. • Contact person for queries: Name: Dr Marlia Mohd Hanafiah Affiliation: Institute of Climate Change (IPI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Email : [email protected] Name: Dr Rawshan Ara Begum Affiliation: Institute of Climate Change (IPI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Email : [email protected] Name: Dr Maggie Chel Gee Ooi Affiliation: Institute of Climate Change (IPI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Email : [email protected]