*2.4. Ethical Considerations*

Ethical issues were considered for this study, although no human subjects were involved due to the nature of this study. The data analyzed in this review is from published articles and reports that are freely or institutionally accessible. No sensitive data such as real medical records were used, meaning that no one's integrity was compromised.

**Figure 1.** The process of study selection—Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart.

#### **3. Results**

### *3.1. General Characteristics of the Reviewed Studies*

Most of the selected studies were published in the last 5 years, while only one study was published earlier in 2015. More than two-thirds of the included papers were recent and published in 2020 or 2021. The studies were carried out in different countries, Australia (n = 4) and Europe (n = 10), while half of the studies originated from the United States of America (n = 14). More than a half of the studies explored the experiences of physicians, among which were medical oncology professionals [35,36], general practitioners [13,37–39], otolaryngologists [40], urologists [41], cardiologists [42], and sports medicine professionals (physiatrists) [43,44]. Another considerable group of professionals was mental health professionals—therapists and psychotherapists—who participated in eight studies. The experiences of other healthcare professionals such as nurses, advanced practice professionals, dieticians, and physical therapists were studied in nine papers. Non-medical professionals, patients, and caregivers were included in some studies; however, their experiences were separated in the results, and findings regarding their experience were not included in this review. Fifteen studies were related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (Table 2).

**Table 2.** General characteristics of the included studies.



**Table 2.** *Cont*.

Five major themes emerged from the data—positive experiences/benefits, facilitators, negative experiences/challenges, barriers, and possible improvements in digital care visits. Each of these themes had multiple categories and sub-categories. The categories will be used as subheadings further on. The results of each will be presented and explained in more detail. (Tables 3–5).
