Barriers to Video Call–Based Telehealth in Allied Health Professions and Nursing: Scoping Review and Mapping Process
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Telehealth interventions have become increasingly important in health care provision, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Video calls have emerged as a popular and effective method for delivering telehealth services; however, barriers limit the adoption among allied health professionals and nurses. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to identify and map the perceived barriers to the use of video call-based telehealth interventions among allied health professionals and nurses. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the PubMed and CINAHL databases on June 22, 2022, and updated on January 3, 2023, following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Only original studies published in English or German since June 2017 that reported barriers to the use of video call-based telehealth interventions were eligible for inclusion. The studies had to involve interviews, focus groups, or questionnaires with physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists, audiologists, orthoptists, dieticians, midwives, or nurses. Each publication was coded for basic characteristics, including country, health profession, and target group. Inductive coding was used to identify the patterns, themes, and categories in the data. Individual codings were analyzed and summarized narratively, with similarities and differences in barriers identified across health professions and target groups. RESULTS: A total of 56 publications were included in the review, with barriers identified and categorized into 8 main categories and 23 subcategories. The studies were conducted in various countries, predominantly the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, Israel, and India. Questionnaires were the most commonly used evaluation method, with 10,245 health professionals involved. Interviews or focus groups were conducted with 288 health professionals. Most of the included publications focused on specific health care professions, with the highest number addressing barriers for physical therapists, speech and language therapists, and audiologists. The barriers were related to technology issues, practice issues, patient issues, environmental issues, attributions, interpersonal issues, policies and regulations, and administration issues. The most reported barriers included the lack of hands-on experience, unreliable network connection, the lack of technology access, diminished fidelity of observations and poor conditions for visual instructions, the lack of technology skills, and diminished client-practitioner interaction and communication. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified key barriers to video call-based telehealth use by allied health professionals and nurses, which can foster the development of stable infrastructure, education, training, guidelines, policies, and support systems to improve telehealth services. Further research is necessary to identify potential solutions to the identified barriers.
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 | 0,014 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 ».