Do Hospitals Need to Extend Telehealth Services? An Experimental Study of Different Telehealth Modalities during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS Methods of Information in Medicine Pub Date : 2021-09-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0041-1735947
Pouyan Esmaeilzadeh, Tala Mirzaei
{"title":"Do Hospitals Need to Extend Telehealth Services? An Experimental Study of Different Telehealth Modalities during the COVID-19 Pandemic.","authors":"Pouyan Esmaeilzadeh,&nbsp;Tala Mirzaei","doi":"10.1055/s-0041-1735947","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic has changed health care systems and clinical workflows in many countries, including the United States. This public health crisis has accelerated the transformation of health care delivery through the use of telehealth. Due to the coronavirus' severity and pathogenicity, telehealth services are considered the best platforms to meet suddenly increased patient care demands, reduce the transformation of the virus, and protect patients and health care workers. However, many hospitals, clinicians, and patients are not ready to switch to virtual care completely.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We designed six experiments to examine how people (as an actual beneficiary of telehealth) evaluate five telehealth encounters versus face-to-face visits.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used an online survey to collect data from 751 individuals (patients) in the United States.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings demonstrate that significant factors for evaluating five types of telehealth encounters are perceived convenience expected from telehealth encounters, perceived psychological risks associated with telehealth programs, and perceived attentive care services delivered by telehealth platforms. However, significant elements for comparing telehealth services with traditional face-to-face clinic visits are perceived cost-saving, perceived time-saving, perceived hygienic services, perceived technical errors, perceived information completeness, perceived communication barriers, perceived trust in medical care platforms' competency, and perceived privacy concerns.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the in-person visit was reported as the most preferred care practice, there was no significant difference between people's willingness to use face-to-face visits versus virtual care. Nevertheless, before the widespread rollout of telehealth platforms, health care systems need to determine and address the challenges of implementing virtual care to improve patient engagement in telehealth services. This study also provides practical implications for health care providers to deploy telehealth effectively during the pandemic and postpandemic phases.</p>","PeriodicalId":49822,"journal":{"name":"Methods of Information in Medicine","volume":"60 3-04","pages":"71-83"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methods of Information in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1735947","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed health care systems and clinical workflows in many countries, including the United States. This public health crisis has accelerated the transformation of health care delivery through the use of telehealth. Due to the coronavirus' severity and pathogenicity, telehealth services are considered the best platforms to meet suddenly increased patient care demands, reduce the transformation of the virus, and protect patients and health care workers. However, many hospitals, clinicians, and patients are not ready to switch to virtual care completely.

Objectives: We designed six experiments to examine how people (as an actual beneficiary of telehealth) evaluate five telehealth encounters versus face-to-face visits.

Methods: We used an online survey to collect data from 751 individuals (patients) in the United States.

Results: Findings demonstrate that significant factors for evaluating five types of telehealth encounters are perceived convenience expected from telehealth encounters, perceived psychological risks associated with telehealth programs, and perceived attentive care services delivered by telehealth platforms. However, significant elements for comparing telehealth services with traditional face-to-face clinic visits are perceived cost-saving, perceived time-saving, perceived hygienic services, perceived technical errors, perceived information completeness, perceived communication barriers, perceived trust in medical care platforms' competency, and perceived privacy concerns.

Conclusion: Although the in-person visit was reported as the most preferred care practice, there was no significant difference between people's willingness to use face-to-face visits versus virtual care. Nevertheless, before the widespread rollout of telehealth platforms, health care systems need to determine and address the challenges of implementing virtual care to improve patient engagement in telehealth services. This study also provides practical implications for health care providers to deploy telehealth effectively during the pandemic and postpandemic phases.

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
医院需要扩展远程医疗服务吗?COVID-19大流行期间不同远程医疗模式的实验研究
背景:2019冠状病毒病大流行改变了包括美国在内的许多国家的卫生保健系统和临床工作流程。这场公共卫生危机通过使用远程保健加速了保健服务的转变。由于冠状病毒的严重性和致病性,远程医疗服务被认为是满足突然增加的患者护理需求、减少病毒转化、保护患者和医护人员的最佳平台。然而,许多医院、临床医生和患者还没有准备好完全转向虚拟医疗。目的:我们设计了六个实验来检查人们(作为远程医疗的实际受益者)如何评估五次远程医疗就诊与面对面就诊。方法:我们使用在线调查收集美国751名个体(患者)的数据。结果:研究结果表明,评估五种类型远程医疗就诊的显著因素是远程医疗就诊预期的感知便利、远程医疗项目相关的感知心理风险和远程医疗平台提供的感知周到护理服务。然而,将远程医疗服务与传统的面对面诊所就诊进行比较的重要因素是感知到的节约成本、感知到的节省时间、感知到的卫生服务、感知到的技术错误、感知到的信息完整性、感知到的沟通障碍、感知到的对医疗保健平台能力的信任以及感知到的隐私问题。结论:尽管面对面就诊被认为是最受欢迎的护理方式,但人们使用面对面就诊和虚拟护理的意愿没有显著差异。然而,在广泛推广远程医疗平台之前,卫生保健系统需要确定并应对实施虚拟医疗的挑战,以提高患者对远程医疗服务的参与度。本研究还为卫生保健提供者在大流行和大流行后阶段有效部署远程医疗提供了实际意义。
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
Methods of Information in Medicine
Methods of Information in Medicine 医学-计算机:信息系统
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
11.80%
发文量
33
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Good medicine and good healthcare demand good information. Since the journal''s founding in 1962, Methods of Information in Medicine has stressed the methodology and scientific fundamentals of organizing, representing and analyzing data, information and knowledge in biomedicine and health care. Covering publications in the fields of biomedical and health informatics, medical biometry, and epidemiology, the journal publishes original papers, reviews, reports, opinion papers, editorials, and letters to the editor. From time to time, the journal publishes articles on particular focus themes as part of a journal''s issue.
期刊最新文献
Cross-lingual Natural Language Processing on Limited Annotated Case/Radiology Reports in English and Japanese: Insights from the Real-MedNLP Workshop. Artificial Intelligence-Based Prediction of Contrast Medium Doses for Computed Tomography Angiography Using Optimized Clinical Parameter Sets. Development and Validation of a Natural Language Processing Algorithm to Pseudonymize Documents in the Context of a Clinical Data Warehouse. Deep Learning for Predicting Progression of Patellofemoral Osteoarthritis Based on Lateral Knee Radiographs, Demographic Data, and Symptomatic Assessments. Europe's Largest Research Infrastructure for Curated Medical Data Models with Semantic Annotations.
×
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