The objective of this study is to provide a systematic review of studies on patient satisfaction with telemedicine. The review included empirical studies that investigated patient satisfaction with that telemedicine service. The search strategy involved matching at least one of 11 'telemedicine' terms with one of 5 'satisfaction' terms. The following databases were searched: Telemedicine Information Exchange (TIE) database, MEDLINE, Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), Psycinfo, and Citation Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL). A highly structured instrument was used for data extraction. The review included 93 studies. Telepsychiatry represents the largest portion of these studies (25%), followed by multispecialty care (14%), nursing (11%), and dermatology (8%). Real-time videoconferencing was used in 88% of these studies. Only 19 (20%) included an independent control group, including 9 (10%) randomized control trial (RCT) studies. One third of studies were based on samples of less than 20 patients, and only 21% had samples of over 100 patients. Aspects of patient satisfaction most commonly assessed were: professional-patient interaction, the patient's feeling about the consultation, and technical aspects of the consultation. Only 33% of the studies included a measure of preference between telemedicine and face-to-face consultation. Almost half the studies measured only 1 or 2 dimensions of satisfaction. Reported levels of satisfaction with telemedicine are consistently greater than 80%, and frequently reported at 100%. Progression of telemedicine services from "trial" status to routine health service must be supported by improved research into patients' satisfaction with telemedicine. Further investigation of factors that influence patient acceptance of telemedicine is indicated.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
"Because automated depression screening and monitoring technology is emerging, little is known about patients' acceptance of it. Related studies of connected health technologies, including those focused on depression care[37,434445464748495051525354, uncritically regard acceptance as patient satisfaction with care, which tells us little about why patients accept or reject the technology or how system design features affect patient acceptance. This study is significant in the connected health literature for depression care in that it utilizes measures from the literature of user acceptance of new technologies[11,55,56]. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background: Remote patient monitoring is increasingly integrated into health care delivery to expand access and increase effectiveness. Automation can add efficiency to remote monitoring, but patient acceptance of automated tools is critical for success. From 2010 to 2013, the Diabetes-Depression Care-management Adoption Trial (DCAT)–a quasi-experimental comparative effectiveness research trial aimed at accelerating the adoption of collaborative depression care in a safety-net health care system–tested a fully automated telephonic assessment (ATA) depression monitoring system serving low-income patients with diabetes.
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine patient acceptance of ATA calls over time, and to identify factors predicting long-term patient acceptance of ATA calls.
Methods: We conducted two analyses using data from the DCAT technology-facilitated care arm, in which for 12 months the ATA system periodically assessed depression symptoms, monitored treatment adherence, prompted self-care behaviors, and inquired about patients’ needs for provider contact. Patients received assessments at 6, 12, and 18 months using Likert-scale measures of willingness to use ATA calls, preferred mode of reach, perceived ease of use, usefulness, nonintrusiveness, privacy/security, and long-term usefulness. For the first analysis (patient acceptance over time), we computed descriptive statistics of these measures. In the second analysis (predictive factors), we collapsed patients into two groups: those reporting “high” versus “low” willingness to use ATA calls. To compare them, we used independent t tests for continuous variables and Pearson chi-square tests for categorical variables. Next, we jointly entered independent factors found to be significantly associated with 18-month willingness to use ATA calls at the univariate level into a logistic regression model with backward selection to identify predictive factors. We performed a final logistic regression model with the identified significant predictive factors and reported the odds ratio estimates and 95% confidence intervals.
Results: At 6 and 12 months, respectively, 89.6% (69/77) and 63.7% (49/77) of patients “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they would be willing to use ATA calls in the future. At 18 months, 51.0% (64/125) of patients perceived ATA calls as useful and 59.7% (46/77) were willing to use the technology. Moreover, in the first 6 months, most patients reported that ATA calls felt private/secure (75.9%, 82/108) and were easy to use (86.2%, 94/109), useful (65.1%, 71/109), and nonintrusive (87.2%, 95/109). Perceived usefulness, however, decreased to 54.1% (59/109) in the second 6 months of the trial. Factors predicting willingness to use ATA calls at the 18-month follow-up were perceived privacy/security and long-term perceived usefulness of ATA calls. No patient characteristics were significant predictors of long-term acceptance.
Conclusions: In the short term, patients are generally accepting of ATA calls for depression monitoring, with ATA call design and the care management intervention being primary factors influencing patient acceptance. Acceptance over the long term requires that the system be perceived as private/secure, and that it be constantly useful for patients’ needs of awareness of feelings, self-care reminders, and connectivity with health care providers.
"Reported benefits include reduced waiting times, less need for travel and time off work, and greater overall convenience. However, the methodology of many patient satisfaction studies has been weak (Williams et al. 2001), in keeping with patient satisfaction research more generally (Sitzia 1999). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Many Australians have limited access to health-care services due to a range of barriers, including geographic distance and restricted mobility, which telehealth can potentially address. This paper reviews the current and potential use of video consultation in primary health care in Australia, drawing on international literature. There is substantial evidence of high patient satisfaction, but many studies have methodological limitations. Overall, evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is weak. There is reasonable evidence for diagnosis, home care and specialist consultations by GPs with patients present. Two telehealth initiatives using video consultation are briefly presented. Both provide evidence that video consultation has a valuable role to play, but does not obviate the need for face-to-face consultations. Video consultation challenges traditional professional roles, particularly those of nurses, and can improve health workers' skills and job satisfaction. More fundamentally, telehealth challenges the traditional distinction between primary and secondary care. This can be a source of resistance but may ultimately be one of its strengths. Appropriately targeted video consultation has much potential to improve the delivery of primary health care in Australia, particularly in rural and remote regions.
Full-text · Article · Oct 2013 · Australian Journal of Primary Health
"Some of the studies included in the reviews did not report power calculations, placing them at risk of Type II errors . Often reviews contained studies that were not randomised or that were designed as observational studies, pilot studies or pre-post studies, limiting the weight that can be given to their conclusions , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . A number of reviews did not clearly detail the study designs of all the included studies , , , , , , , , , , , , , . "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Telehealthcare involves the use of information and communication technologies to deliver healthcare at a distance and to support patient self-management through remote monitoring and personalised feedback. It is timely to scrutinise the evidence regarding the benefits, risks and costs of telehealthcare.
Two reviewers searched for relevant systematic reviews published from January 1997 to November 2011 in: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, IndMed and PakMed. Reviewers undertook independent quality assessment of studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for systematic reviews. 1,782 review articles were identified, from which 80 systematic reviews were selected for inclusion. These covered a range of telehealthcare models involving both synchronous (live) and asynchronous (store-and-forward) interactions between provider and patients. Many studies showed no differences in outcomes between telehealthcare and usual care. Several reviews highlighted the large number of short-term (<12 months) feasibility studies with under 20 participants. Effects of telehealthcare on health service indicators were reported in several reviews, particularly reduced hospitalisations. The reported clinical effectiveness of telehealthcare interventions for patients with long-term conditions appeared to be greatest in those with more severe disease at high-risk of hospitalisation and death. The failure of many studies to adequately describe the intervention makes it difficult to disentangle the contributions of technological and human/organisational factors on the outcomes reported. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare remains sparse. Patient safety considerations were absent from the evaluative telehealthcare literature.
Policymakers and planners need to be aware that investment in telehealthcare will not inevitably yield clinical or economic benefits. It is likely that the greatest gains will be achieved for patients at highest risk of serious outcomes. There is a need for longer-term studies in order to determine whether the benefits demonstrated in time limited trials are sustained.