A review of questionnaires used for the assessment of telemedicine.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-09 DOI:10.1177/1357633X231166161
Raphael A Agbali, E Andrew Balas, Francesco Beltrame, Vahe Heboyan, Gianluca De Leo
{"title":"A review of questionnaires used for the assessment of telemedicine.","authors":"Raphael A Agbali, E Andrew Balas, Francesco Beltrame, Vahe Heboyan, Gianluca De Leo","doi":"10.1177/1357633X231166161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Telemedicine is the exchange of medical information from one site to another via electronic communications with the goal of improving a patient's clinical health status. Prior studies have identified the absence of a standardized assessment tool for evaluating telemedicine encounters. This study aims to collect and to analyze questionnaires used for the assessment of audiovisual telemedicine encounters from a patient perspective and aims to identify reasons driving the use of self-developed questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search in PubMed for studies that used survey questionnaires to assess synchronous audiovisual telemedicine encounters from 2016 to 2021. We categorized questionnaires used into validated and non-validated types, and for each of them, collected questions, response format, author, year, specialty, and country of publication.</p><p><strong>Results and discussion: </strong>We analyzed a total of 71 articles. We found that only 16 studies used three validated questionnaires. The remaining 55 studies used non-validated questionnaires. Non-validated questionnaires had a high variability in length and used Likert scales, binary responses, multiple choice, and open-ended answers. We found only eight studies in which the authors gave a reason for resorting to designing their own questionnaires. This review reveals insufficient standardized survey questionnaires to be used for the assessment of audiovisual telemedicine encounters. Future research initiatives should focus on developing a standardized and validated instrument well accepted by researchers.</p>","PeriodicalId":50024,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare","volume":" ","pages":"1636-1666"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X231166161","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Telemedicine is the exchange of medical information from one site to another via electronic communications with the goal of improving a patient's clinical health status. Prior studies have identified the absence of a standardized assessment tool for evaluating telemedicine encounters. This study aims to collect and to analyze questionnaires used for the assessment of audiovisual telemedicine encounters from a patient perspective and aims to identify reasons driving the use of self-developed questionnaires.

Methods: We conducted a systematic search in PubMed for studies that used survey questionnaires to assess synchronous audiovisual telemedicine encounters from 2016 to 2021. We categorized questionnaires used into validated and non-validated types, and for each of them, collected questions, response format, author, year, specialty, and country of publication.

Results and discussion: We analyzed a total of 71 articles. We found that only 16 studies used three validated questionnaires. The remaining 55 studies used non-validated questionnaires. Non-validated questionnaires had a high variability in length and used Likert scales, binary responses, multiple choice, and open-ended answers. We found only eight studies in which the authors gave a reason for resorting to designing their own questionnaires. This review reveals insufficient standardized survey questionnaires to be used for the assessment of audiovisual telemedicine encounters. Future research initiatives should focus on developing a standardized and validated instrument well accepted by researchers.

对用于评估远程医疗的调查问卷进行审查。
简介远程医疗是指通过电子通信从一个地点到另一个地点交换医疗信息,目的是改善病人的临床健康状况。先前的研究发现,目前还没有用于评估远程医疗会诊的标准化评估工具。本研究旨在从患者的角度收集和分析用于评估视听远程医疗会诊的调查问卷,并找出使用自行开发的调查问卷的原因:我们在PubMed上对2016年至2021年期间使用调查问卷评估同步视听远程医疗会诊的研究进行了系统检索。我们将所使用的问卷分为经过验证和未经验证两种类型,并收集了每种问卷的问题、回答格式、作者、年份、专业和发表国家:我们共分析了 71 篇文章。我们发现,只有 16 项研究使用了三种经过验证的问卷。其余 55 项研究使用的是未经验证的问卷。未经验证的问卷长度差异较大,并使用了李克特量表、二元回答、多项选择和开放式答案。我们发现只有 8 项研究的作者说明了自己设计问卷的原因。本综述显示,用于评估视听远程医疗会诊的标准化调查问卷不足。未来的研究计划应侧重于开发一种标准化的、经过验证的、被研究人员广泛接受的工具。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.10
自引率
10.60%
发文量
174
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare provides excellent peer reviewed coverage of developments in telemedicine and e-health and is now widely recognised as the leading journal in its field. Contributions from around the world provide a unique perspective on how different countries and health systems are using new technology in health care. Sections within the journal include technology updates, editorials, original articles, research tutorials, educational material, review articles and reports from various telemedicine organisations. A subscription to this journal will help you to stay up-to-date in this fast moving and growing area of medicine.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信