Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-rbv74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-24T08:44:02.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TELEMEDICAL VERSUS CONVENTIONAL HEART PATIENT MONITORING: A SURVEY STUDY WITH GERMAN PHYSICIANS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2013

Lars Klack ,
Martina Ziefle ,
Wiktoria Wilkowska  and
Johanna Kluge
Lars Klack
Affiliation:
Human-Computer-Interaction Center at RWTH Aachen University
Martina Ziefle
Affiliation:
Human-Computer-Interaction Center at RWTH Aachen University
Wiktoria Wilkowska
Affiliation:
Human-Computer-Interaction Center at RWTH Aachen University
Johanna Kluge
Affiliation:
Human-Computer-Interaction Center at RWTH Aachen University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: In this study, we explored crucial factors that explain a person's attitude toward and his or her assessment of telemedical systems. Special focus lies on the link between the perspective of physicians (telemedicine users) and technicians (telemedicine designers) to find potential barriers hindering the broad application of telemedical systems in hospitals and doctors’ offices.

Methods: A survey among medical professionals (n = 34), technical professionals (n = 39), and a control group (n = 44) was conducted. The collected data were assessed in terms of domain knowledge, attitudes toward telemedicine, and potential implementation barriers.

Results: Participants favored the conventional method over telemedical monitoring in regards to privacy, security, and time efficiency. In contrast, telemedicine was preferred with reference to efficiency of data analysis, long-term care, and emergency adequacy. Significant differences between the professional groups were found regarding perceived cost effectiveness, patients’ compliance, privacy protection, and false alarm sensitivity. Medical professionals exhibited the most reluctance toward using telemedical treatments.

Conclusions: The perceived drawbacks are attributed to a general uncertainty about the reliability of telemedical systems, in combination with concerns about personal data privacy, security, and loss of control. The reported fear of not being able to correctly use and handle the systems assumes a low usability of devices. To acquaint medical professionals with the benefits and limitations of telemedical systems, telemonitoring and tele-treatment should be included in the education of medical personnel at an early stage.

Keywords

Technology acceptanceTelemedicine assessmentMedical professionals
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 378 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1.Röcker, C, Ziefle, M. E-Health, assistive technologies and applications for assisted living. Hershey, PA: IGI Global; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Martin, AB, Probst, JC, Shah, K, Chen, Z, Garr, D. Differences in readiness between rural hospitals and primary care providers for telemedicine adoption and implementation: Findings from a statewide telemedicine survey. J Rural Health. 2012;28:8–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Whited, JD. Economic analysis of telemedicine and the teledermatology paradigm. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16:223–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Zanaboni, P, Wootton, R. Adoption of telemedicine: from pilot stage to routine delivery. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Rao, B, Lombardi, A Jr. Telemedicine: Current status in developed and developing countries. J Drugs Dermatol. 2009;8:371–375.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Spaulding, RJ, Russo, T, Cook, DJ, Doolittle, GC. Diffusion theory and telemedicine adoption by Kansas health-care providers: critical factors in telemedicine adoption for improved patient access. J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11 (Suppl 1):107–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Gagnon, M-P, Duplantie, J, Fortin, J-P, Jennett, P, Scott, R. A survey in Alberta and Quebec of the telehealth applications that physicians need. J Telemed Telecare. 2007;13:352–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Bashshur, R, Shannon, G, Sapci, H. Telemedicine evaluation. Telemed J E Health. 2005;11:296–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Alagöz, F, Ziefle, M, Wilkowska, W, Calero-Valdez, A. Openness to accept medical technology - A cultural view. In: Holzinger, A, Simonic, K-M, eds. Information quality in e-Health. Vol 7058. Heidelberg: Springer; 2011:151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Klack, L, Schmitz-Rode, T, Wilkowska, W, et al.Integrated home monitoring and compliance optimization for patients with mechanical circulatory support devices. Ann Biomed Eng. 2011;39:2911–2921.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Mennicken, S, Ziefle, M, Sack, O. People and a virtual doctor's visit: Learning about multiple facets of acceptance in a telemedical scenario. In: Workshop user-centered-design of pervasive health applications. IEEE Xplore; 2011.Google Scholar
12.Buck, S. Nine human factors contributing to the user acceptance of telemedicine applications: A cognitive-emotional approach. J Telemed Telecare. 2009;15:55–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Wilkowska, W, Ziefle, M. Privacy and data security in E-health: Requirements from users’ perspective. Health Informatics J. 2012;18:191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Beier, G. Locus of control when interacting with technology (Kontrollüberzeugungen im Umgang mit Technik). Psychol Rep. 1999;24:684–693.Google Scholar
15.Ziefle, M, Röcker, C, Holzinger, A. Medical technology in smart homes: Exploring the user's perspective on privacy, intimacy and trust. In: Computer software and applications conference workshops. Munich: 2011:410–415.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Klack et al. supplementary material

Questionnaire

Download Klack et al. supplementary material(File)
File 563.7 KB