Barriers and facilitators for the use of telehealth by healthcare providers in India-A systematic review.

IF 7.7 PLOS digital health Pub Date : 2024-12-06 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000398
Parth Sharma, Shirish Rao, Padmavathy Krishna Kumar, Aiswarya R Nair, Disha Agrawal, Siddhesh Zadey, Gayathri Surendran, Rachna George Joseph, Girish Dayma, Liya Rafeekh, Shubhashis Saha, Sitanshi Sharma, S S Prakash, Venkatesan Sankarapandian, Preethi John, Vikram Patel
{"title":"Barriers and facilitators for the use of telehealth by healthcare providers in India-A systematic review.","authors":"Parth Sharma, Shirish Rao, Padmavathy Krishna Kumar, Aiswarya R Nair, Disha Agrawal, Siddhesh Zadey, Gayathri Surendran, Rachna George Joseph, Girish Dayma, Liya Rafeekh, Shubhashis Saha, Sitanshi Sharma, S S Prakash, Venkatesan Sankarapandian, Preethi John, Vikram Patel","doi":"10.1371/journal.pdig.0000398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is widely assumed that telehealth tools like mHealth (mobile health), telemedicine, and tele-education can supplement the efficiency of Healthcare Providers (HCPs). We conducted a systematic review of evidence on the barriers and facilitators associated with the use of telehealth by HCPs in India. A systematic literature search following a pre-registered protocol (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KQ3U9 [PROTOCOL DOI]) was conducted on PubMed. The search strategy, inclusion, and exclusion criteria were based on the World Health Organization's action framework on Human Resources for Health (HRH) and Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in India with a specific focus on telehealth tools. Eligible articles published in English from 1st January 2001 to 17th February 2022 were included. One hundred and six studies were included in the review. Of these, 53 studies (50%) involved mHealth interventions, 25 (23.6%) involved telemedicine interventions whereas the remaining 28 (26.4%) involved the use of tele-education interventions by HCPs in India. In each category, most of the studies followed a quantitative study design and were mostly published in the last 5 years. The study sites were more commonly present in states in south India. The facilitators and barriers related to each type of intervention were analyzed under the following sub-headings- 1) Human resource related, 2) Application related 3) Technical, and 4) Others. The interventions were most commonly used for improving the management of mental health, non-communicable diseases, and maternal and child health. The use of telehealth has not been uniformly studied in India. The facilitators and barriers to telehealth use need to be kept in mind while designing the intervention. Future studies should focus on looking at region-specific, intervention-specific, and health cadre-specific barriers and facilitators for the use of telehealth.</p>","PeriodicalId":74465,"journal":{"name":"PLOS digital health","volume":"3 12","pages":"e0000398"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11623477/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is widely assumed that telehealth tools like mHealth (mobile health), telemedicine, and tele-education can supplement the efficiency of Healthcare Providers (HCPs). We conducted a systematic review of evidence on the barriers and facilitators associated with the use of telehealth by HCPs in India. A systematic literature search following a pre-registered protocol (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KQ3U9 [PROTOCOL DOI]) was conducted on PubMed. The search strategy, inclusion, and exclusion criteria were based on the World Health Organization's action framework on Human Resources for Health (HRH) and Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in India with a specific focus on telehealth tools. Eligible articles published in English from 1st January 2001 to 17th February 2022 were included. One hundred and six studies were included in the review. Of these, 53 studies (50%) involved mHealth interventions, 25 (23.6%) involved telemedicine interventions whereas the remaining 28 (26.4%) involved the use of tele-education interventions by HCPs in India. In each category, most of the studies followed a quantitative study design and were mostly published in the last 5 years. The study sites were more commonly present in states in south India. The facilitators and barriers related to each type of intervention were analyzed under the following sub-headings- 1) Human resource related, 2) Application related 3) Technical, and 4) Others. The interventions were most commonly used for improving the management of mental health, non-communicable diseases, and maternal and child health. The use of telehealth has not been uniformly studied in India. The facilitators and barriers to telehealth use need to be kept in mind while designing the intervention. Future studies should focus on looking at region-specific, intervention-specific, and health cadre-specific barriers and facilitators for the use of telehealth.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
印度卫生保健提供者使用远程保健的障碍和促进因素:系统审查。
人们普遍认为,远程医疗工具,如移动医疗(移动医疗)、远程医疗和远程教育可以补充医疗保健提供者(HCPs)的效率。我们对印度卫生服务提供者使用远程医疗的相关障碍和促进因素的证据进行了系统审查。按照预先注册的协议(https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KQ3U9 [protocol DOI])在PubMed上进行了系统的文献检索。搜索战略、纳入和排除标准以世界卫生组织关于印度卫生人力资源和全民健康覆盖的行动框架为基础,特别注重远程医疗工具。包括2001年1月1日至2022年2月17日期间发表的符合条件的英文文章。该综述纳入了106项研究。其中,53项研究(50%)涉及移动健康干预,25项研究(23.6%)涉及远程医疗干预,其余28项研究(26.4%)涉及印度hcp使用远程教育干预。在每个类别中,大多数研究都遵循定量研究设计,并且大多发表于最近5年。研究地点在印度南部各州更为普遍。每种干预措施的促进因素和障碍按以下小标题进行分析:1)人力资源相关,2)应用相关,3)技术相关,4)其他相关。这些干预措施最常用于改善对精神健康、非传染性疾病和妇幼保健的管理。在印度,对远程保健的使用情况没有进行统一的研究。在设计干预措施时,需要考虑到远程保健使用的促进因素和障碍。未来的研究应侧重于研究具体区域、具体干预措施和具体保健干部使用远程保健的障碍和促进因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparing human vs. machine-assisted analysis to develop a new approach for Big Qualitative Data Analysis. AI-ECG classification for Brugada syndrome: A study of machine learning techniques to optimise for limited datasets. Design, implementation and analysis of a quality assurance process for Informed Consents using the DZHK registry TORCH-DZHK1 as an example. ICD coding of death certificates with generative language models. Pregnant women's and health workers' perceptions and experiences on the Rwandan ANC digital module intervention at selected health centres.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1