Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Mar 30;5(1):e9.
doi: 10.2196/ijmr.5015.

Opinions and Beliefs About Telemedicine for Emergency Treatment During Ambulance Transportation and for Chronic Care at Home

Alexis Valenzuela Espinoza  1 , Ann De Smedt, Kaat Guldolf, Fenne Vandervorst, Robbert-Jan Van Hooff, Helio Fernandez Tellez, Sara Desmaele, Melissa Cambron, Ives Hubloue, Raf Brouns
Affiliations

Opinions and Beliefs About Telemedicine for Emergency Treatment During Ambulance Transportation and for Chronic Care at Home

Alexis Valenzuela Espinoza et al. Interact J Med Res. .

Abstract

Background: Telemedicine is a valid alternative to face-to-face patient care in many areas. However, the opinion of all stakeholders is decisive for successful adoption of this technique, especially as telemedicine expands into novel domains such as emergency teleconsultations during ambulance transportation and chronic care at home.

Objective: We evaluate the viewpoints of the broad public, patients, and professional caregivers in these situations.

Methods: A 10-question survey was developed and obtained via face-to-face interviews of visitors at the Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZB). The online questionnaire was also distributed among professional caregivers via the intranet of the UZB and among the broad public using social media.

Results: In total, 607 individuals responded to the questionnaire, expressing a positive opinion regarding telemedicine for in-ambulance emergency treatment and for chronic care at home. Privacy issues were not perceived as relevant, and most respondents were ready to participate in future teleconsultations. Lack of telecommunication knowledge (213/566, 37.6%) was the only independent factor associated with rejection of telemedicine at home and respondents via social media (250/607, 41.2%) were less concerned about privacy issues than respondents via face-to-face interviews (visitors, 234/607, 38.6%). The visitors were more positive towards in-ambulance telemedicine and more likely to agree with future participation in teleconsultations than respondents via social media.

Conclusions: The broad public, professional caregivers, and patients reported a positive attitude towards telemedicine for emergency treatment during ambulance transportation and for chronic care at home. These results support further improvement of telemedicine solutions in these domains.

Keywords: adoption; diagnostic techniques and procedures; emergency care; patient-centered care; stroke; telemedicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: RB and HF are co-founders of Zebra Academy cvba.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution of the Likert scale for in-ambulance telestroke in the total study population.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of the Likert scale for in-ambulance telestroke per respondent type.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Shift analysis of the responses from visitors compared to social media concerning in-ambulance telestroke.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Distribution of the Likert scale for telemedicine at home in the total study population.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Distribution of the Likert scale for telemedicine at home per respondent type.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Shift analysis of the responses from respondents with knowledge of telecommunication compared to those without knowledge of telecommunication concerning telemedicine at home.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Distribution of the Likert scale for protection of privacy and identity in the total study population.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Distribution of the Likert scale for protection of privacy per respondent type.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Shift analysis of the responses from social media compared to visitors concerning protection of privacy.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Distribution of the Likert scale for participation in future telemedicine consultations in the total study population.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Distribution of the Likert scale for participation in future telemedicine consultations per respondent type.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Shift analysis of the responses from visitors compared to social media concerning future participation in telemedicine consultations.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Whitten P, Holtz B, Nguyen L. Keys to a successful and sustainable telemedicine program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010 Apr;26(2):211–216. doi: 10.1017/S026646231000005X.S026646231000005X - DOI - PubMed
    1. Elbert NJ, van OH, van RW, Ekeland AG, Hakkaart-van RL, Raat H, Nijsten T, Pasmans S. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ehealth interventions in somatic diseases: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(4):e110. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2790. http://www.jmir.org/2014/4/e110/ v16i4e110 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hailey D, Ohinmaa A, Roine R. Study quality and evidence of benefit in recent assessments of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 2004;10(6):318–324. doi: 10.1258/1357633042602053. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hersh W, Hickam D, Severance S, Dana T, Krages KP, Helfand M. Diagnosis, access and outcomes: Update of a systematic review of telemedicine services. J Telemed Telecare. 2006;12 Suppl 2:S3–31. doi: 10.1258/135763306778393117. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Benschoter RA. Television. Multi-purpose television. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1967 Mar 31;142(2):471–478. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources