Barriers to telehealth uptake and use: a scoping review.

IF 3.4 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":3.4000,"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).

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
远程保健吸收和使用的障碍:范围审查。
目的:我们进行了一项范围审查,从文献中记录的患者、提供者和系统的角度确定远程医疗使用和吸收的障碍。除了识别和分类障碍外,我们还旨在评估在COVID-19大流行期间进行的研究的障碍有何不同,以及美国与国际研究之间的障碍有何不同。材料和方法:于2021年12月29日对PubMed/MEDLINE、CINAHL和Scopus数据库进行综合检索,得到17887个结果,剔除重复后得到11221个潜在符合条件的文献。该小组进行了初步的标题和摘要审查,然后是全文审查。从纳入的来源中提取数据并总结为主要主题。结果:我们确定了395篇专门与远程医疗使用障碍相关的文章。排名前5位的障碍,按频率排序为:缺乏技能或能力(55%)、缺乏兴趣(49%)、缺乏获得技术的途径(45%)、技术基础设施的限制(45%)和缺乏护理质量(42%)。大约三分之一(39%)的研究与COVID-19大流行有关,54%是美国的研究。COVID-19与非COVID-19研究以及美国与非美国研究之间的障碍等级顺序相同;然而,美国的患者和在COVID-19期间使用远程医疗的患者更有可能提到与无法获得技术相关的障碍(COVID = 56%对38%;美国= 51% vs 38%)。讨论:解决障碍的干预措施需要考虑特定人群的独特需求以及不同障碍可能交叉的方式。结论:本综述发现,远程医疗的吸收和使用障碍是多层次的,发生在几个层面(个人、结构、技术)。
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
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
Patient perspectives about deployment of artificial intelligence decision support tools in a safety-net healthcare system. Real-time automated billing for tobacco treatment: performance evaluation of the CigStopper machine learning framework. Synergy of diagnosis coding between administrative claims and electronic health records of large patient populations across multiple healthcare organizations. Characterization and comparison of structured and unstructured electronic health record data mapped to MedDRA for post-marketing surveillance. Clinical validation of MyCog Mobile: development of a parsimonious and clinically interpretable prediction model for mild cognitive impairment.
×
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