Table 1.

Themes emerging from the virtual stakeholder meeting.

Questions Addressed within This Review	Research Needs
How can/should universal accessibility of teleneurology be ensured? Voluntariness at the European level, testing of connectivity and compatibility of devices. What access barriers exist for access to teleneurology? How can these access barriers be reduced? What technologies and ways of implementing these technologies or interventions facilitate access?	Could teleconsultation be positive for patients with behavioural or cognitive problems? Does it reduce the time between visits for patients? Is it more efficient for professionals?
	How effective are the different organisational models for contact points?
How should patient perspectives and preferences be considered? Do some patients feel insecure about teleneurology or perceive it as an inferior model of care to traditional models, such as face-to-face care?
	How can the quality of teleconsultation be ensured? Should quality criteria be changed or adapted to teleneurology?
-How can/should a teleservice be organized taking into account consultation and recording times adapted to each type of contact? -Can increased multidisciplinary coordination be managed efficiently and cost-effectively?	Can the time management of healthcare professionals be improved by promoting work-life balance?
How should privacy and confidentiality be ensured in the different types of teleconsultation and in the storage of additional data?
-How can it be determined that teleneurology is used appropriately as a complement to face-to-face consultations? Which types of healthcare events require face-to-face attendance and which ones do not? -Could a checklist in the report help in deciding when it is appropriate to implement/pilot complementary teleneurology?
How can continuity of care be ensured in the face of possible connection or device failures by healthcare providers and patients?