The literature examining direct-to-consumer (DTC) commercial virtual care has expanded rapidly over the past decade. Our objective was to synthesise the nature and range of evidence on DTC commercial virtual care.

Scoping review.

MEDLINE ALL, EMBASE Classic+Embase, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and grey literature sources.

We included original research studies published in English or French between 1 January 2016 and 30 April 2025 that assessed DTC commercial virtual care in all contexts and in all populations.

Screening titles and abstracts, and full-text manuscripts, and extracting data was done in duplicate. We analysed quantitative data using descriptive statistics and reported findings in tables. We provided a narrative summary of textual data.

After excluding duplicates, we identified 8055 studies for title and abstract screening; 691 articles for full-text screening; and 103 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. 32 studies (31.1%) reported financial ties to the virtual care industry. 67 (65.0%) studies were conducted in the USA. Studies were largely quantitative (87/103 (84.5%)) or mixed methods (8/103 (7.8%)) studies and used cross-sectional (85/95 (89.5%)) designs. Most quantitative studies were descriptive, reporting on quality of care, health outcomes, platform characteristics and patient views, with only 24 of the 95 quantitative studies (25.3%) including a control or comparison group. 18 of these 24 studies (75.0%) compared the quality of care, costs and/or utilisation to other models of care and reported variable findings. The rest compared patient characteristics. Few studies assessed clinician perspectives or addressed privacy-related ethical concerns.

Despite a large number of studies assessing DTC commercial virtual care, we have little insight into impacts on quality of care, health outcomes, health system utilisation and privacy-related ethical concerns. The financial ties with industry suggest that there may be bias in the body of research literature.

Chronic dyspnoea is a prevalent symptom, and primary care is ideally placed to identify and manage it. However, chronic dyspnoea is under-reported by patients and can be a diagnostic dilemma for practitioners. A fully automated system of patient screening, coupled with a clinical decision support system (CDSS) that uses a validated and evidence-based dyspnoea algorithm, may improve detection, diagnosis and management of the condition. There is currently no CDSS validated for chronic dyspnoea diagnosis and management in primary care in Australia. The objectives of this study are to assess the clinical impact of a CDSS for chronic dyspnoea in primary care. We hypothesise that the use of the CDSS will lead to a clinically significant improvement in patient-reported dyspnoea scores, reduced time to diagnosis and healthcare costs at 12 months compared with standard care.

The BREATHE study is an open-label, cluster-randomised controlled trial of standard of care compared with a CDSS. General practices (n=40) in metropolitan, regional/rural and rural/remote settings will be recruited and randomised equally to pre-screening for chronic dyspnoea and usual standard-of-care management or pre-screening and CDSS-guided management. The CDSS includes an algorithm derived from a robust data and clinical knowledge model and incorporates evidence-based recommendations for the assessment and management of chronic dyspnoea. It is integrated into general practice medical software systems, fitting in the workflow of general practitioners (GPs). Eligible patients will be ≥18 years old and will have previously consented to receive SMS communication from their practice. In-scope patients will receive an automated text message prior to their GP appointment and will be screened for chronic dyspnoea (≥4 weeks). Patients identified with chronic dyspnoea will be invited to participate in the BREATHE study and followed up for 12 months. The primary outcome is improvement in the Dyspnoea-12 (D-12) score from baseline to 12 months, measured by the Dyspnoea-12 (D-12) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include disease-specific questionnaires to assess changes in clinical outcomes, time to final diagnosis, quality of life, healthcare utilisation and costs incurred to patients.

The trial is registered at ANZCTR (ACTRN12624001451594). ANZCTR is a primary registry that meets the requirements of the ICMJE and is listed on the ICTRP Registry Network.

The study protocol has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (iRECS6645) and complies with the National Health and Medical Research Council ethical guidelines. Participating practices and each GP will provide written, informed consent. All patients being screened will provide electronic informed consent. Results of the study will be disseminated through various forums, including peer-reviewed publications and presentation at national and international conferences. Following the study, participating practices will be provided with a summary of the findings of the study, together with a full copy of any publications and a plain language statement for participants, which will be made available in the practice reception area.

Women who develop gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have a 60% lifetime risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), which is already elevated within the first decade following childbirth. Despite the impact of lifestyle interventions to reduce long-term T2D risk in women with previous GDM, successful implementation of lifestyle interventions remains a barrier. Metformin is recommended for adults at increased risk of developing T2D; however, there is limited evidence of tolerability in the early postpartum period. Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) are effective at improving glycaemic status and body weight. However, GLP-1 RA have not been evaluated in the postpartum population. Finally, physical activity monitors may support behaviour changes related to physical activity to reduce long-term risk of T2D but are yet to be studied following GDM.

This will be a multicentre, randomised, open-label interventional pilot study. Using a 2x2 factorial design, we will examine the feasibility and acceptability of a pharmacotherapy intervention and a physical activity intervention in women with previous GDM at increased risk of developing T2D. Participants will be recruited from tertiary referral hospitals in Australia and will be randomised to receive either metformin alone or in combination with a GLP-1 RA and subsequently randomised to either a physical activity intervention involving activity monitor use, or usual care for 6 months, followed by a 6-month follow-up period. Primary feasibility outcomes include the acceptability and safety of the metformin and GLP-1 RA as measured through pill and injection counts, acceptability questionnaire and adverse events.

This trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (Registration Number: ACTRN12624001253594). This trial has received ethics approval from the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval Number: 2024/ETH00042, protocol version v1.1, 28/02/2025).

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, Registration Number: ACTRN12624001253594.