Barriers to Telemedicine Use: Qualitative Analysis of Provider Perspectives During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Though telemedicine is a promising approach for removing barriers to care and improving access for patients, telemedicine use for many medical specialties has decreased from its peak during the acute COVID-19 public health crisis. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to the maintenance of web-based visits-one key component of telemedicine-is critical for ensuring the continuous availability of this service for patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to describe medical providers' perceived barriers and facilitators to the continued use of web-based visits to inform quality improvement efforts and promote sustainability. METHODS: We performed a qualitative content analysis of free-text responses from a survey of medical providers administered from February 5-14, 2021, at a large, midwestern academic institution, including all providers from medical professions that offered telemedicine (eg, physicians, residents or fellows, nurse practitioners, physicians assistants, or nurses) who completed at least 1 web-based visit from March 20, 2020, to February 14, 2021. The primary outcome was the experience of providing web-based visits, including barriers and facilitators to continued usage of web-based visits. Survey questions included 3 major domains: quality of care, technology, and satisfaction. Responses were coded using qualitative content analysis and further analyzed through a matrix analysis to understand the providers' perspectives and elucidate key barriers and facilitators of web-based visit usage. RESULTS: Of 2692 eligible providers, 1040 (38.6%) completed the survey, of whom 702 were providers from medical professions that offered telemedicine. These providers spanned 7 health care professions and 47 clinical departments. The most common professions represented were physicians (486/702, 46.7%), residents or fellows (85/702, 8.2%), and nurse practitioners (81/702, 7.8%), while the most common clinical departments were internal medicine (69/702, 6.6%), psychiatry (69/702, 6.6%), and physical medicine and rehabilitation (67/702, 6.4%). The following 4 overarching categories of provider experience with web-based visits emerged: quality of care, patient rapport, visit flow, and equity. Though many providers saw web-based visits as a tool for improving care access, quality, and equity, others shared how appropriate selection of web-based visits, support (eg, patient training, home devices, and broadband access), and institutional and nationwide optimization (eg, relaxation of licensing requirements across state borders and reimbursement for phone-only modalities) were needed to sustain web-based visits. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate key barriers to the maintenance of telemedicine services following the acute public health crisis. These findings can help prioritize the most impactful methods of sustaining and expanding telemedicine availability for patients who prefer this method of care delivery.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».