Barriers to telehealth uptake and use: a scoping review.

IF 2.5 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES JAMIA Open Pub Date : 2025-03-19 eCollection Date: 2025-04-01 DOI:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaf019
Mackenzie Kemp, Kristin L Rising, Gregory Laynor, Jessica Miao, Brooke Worster, Anna Marie Chang, Andrew J Monick, Amanda Guth, Tracy Esteves Camacho, Kiana McIntosh, Grace Amadio, Lindsey Shughart, TingAnn Hsiao, Amy E Leader
{"title":"Barriers to telehealth uptake and use: a scoping review.","authors":"Mackenzie Kemp, Kristin L Rising, Gregory Laynor, Jessica Miao, Brooke Worster, Anna Marie Chang, Andrew J Monick, Amanda Guth, Tracy Esteves Camacho, Kiana McIntosh, Grace Amadio, Lindsey Shughart, TingAnn Hsiao, Amy E Leader","doi":"10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaf019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We conducted a scoping review to identify barriers to telehealth use and uptake from the perspective of patient, provider, and system that were documented in the literature. In addition to identifying and categorizing the barriers, we aimed to assess how barriers differed for studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as how barriers differed between the United States vs internationally based studies.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Comprehensive searches of the PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases conducted on December 29, 2021 yielded 17 887 results, with 11 221 potentially eligible documents after duplicates were removed. The team conducted an initial title and abstract review, followed by full text review. Data from the included sources were extracted and summarized into primary themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 395 articles specifically related to barriers of telehealth use. The top 5 barriers, in order of frequency, were: lack of skills or ability (55%), lack of interest (49%), lack of access to technology (45%), limitations of technology infrastructure (45%), and lack of quality of care (42%). Roughly one-third (39%) of studies were related to the COVID-19 pandemic and 54% were US-based studies. The rank order of barriers between COVID-19 vs non-COVID-19 studies and US vs non-US studies was the same; however, patients in the United States and those using telehealth during COVID-19 were more likely to cite barriers related to the lack of access to technology (COVID = 56% vs 38%; United States = 51% vs 38%).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Interventions to address barriers need to consider the unique needs of specific populations and the ways in which different barriers may intersect.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review found that barriers to telehealth uptake and use are multilayered and occur at several levels (individual, structural, technological).</p>","PeriodicalId":36278,"journal":{"name":"JAMIA Open","volume":"8 2","pages":"ooaf019"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11921419/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMIA Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaf019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: We conducted a scoping review to identify barriers to telehealth use and uptake from the perspective of patient, provider, and system that were documented in the literature. In addition to identifying and categorizing the barriers, we aimed to assess how barriers differed for studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as how barriers differed between the United States vs internationally based studies.

Materials and methods: Comprehensive searches of the PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases conducted on December 29, 2021 yielded 17 887 results, with 11 221 potentially eligible documents after duplicates were removed. The team conducted an initial title and abstract review, followed by full text review. Data from the included sources were extracted and summarized into primary themes.

Results: We identified 395 articles specifically related to barriers of telehealth use. The top 5 barriers, in order of frequency, were: lack of skills or ability (55%), lack of interest (49%), lack of access to technology (45%), limitations of technology infrastructure (45%), and lack of quality of care (42%). Roughly one-third (39%) of studies were related to the COVID-19 pandemic and 54% were US-based studies. The rank order of barriers between COVID-19 vs non-COVID-19 studies and US vs non-US studies was the same; however, patients in the United States and those using telehealth during COVID-19 were more likely to cite barriers related to the lack of access to technology (COVID = 56% vs 38%; United States = 51% vs 38%).

Discussion: Interventions to address barriers need to consider the unique needs of specific populations and the ways in which different barriers may intersect.

Conclusion: This review found that barriers to telehealth uptake and use are multilayered and occur at several levels (individual, structural, technological).

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JAMIA Open
JAMIA Open Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
102
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Barriers to telehealth uptake and use: a scoping review. Standardizing phenotypic algorithms for the classification of degenerative rotator cuff tear from electronic health record systems. LLM-IE: a python package for biomedical generative information extraction with large language models. Standards and infrastructure for multisite deployment of the research participant perception survey. Aligning prediction models with clinical information needs: infant sepsis case study.
×
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:481959085
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