Dataset Information

Facilitators and barriers for the implementation of telemedicine from a local government point of view - a cross-sectional survey in Germany.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Telemedicine offers additional ways of delivering medical care, e.g., in primary care in rural areas. During the last decades, projects including telemedicine are being implemented worldwide. However, implementation of telemedicine is in some countries, e.g., Germany somewhat slower compared to northern European countries. One important part of successful implementation is to include the citizen perspective. The aims of this study were to explore the perception of representatives of the local government regarding telemedicine in the context of a perceived GP shortage and to tailor future telemedicine offers according to these perceived needs.

Methods

Considering the multidisciplinary assessment suggested by the Model for Assessment of Telemedicine a questionnaire with 19 questions was developed by identifying determinants of telemedicine out the literature. After pre-testing, the questionnaire was sent to all 2199 mayors from the federal states of Schleswig-Holstein (North Germany) and Baden-Württemberg (South Germany) as representatives of the citizens (cross- sectional study; full population survey). The final questionnaire contained sections for socio-demographic data, telemedicine and perceived GP shortage. All responses from November 2018 until 2019 were included and analyzed descriptively.

Results

The response rate was 32% (N = 699), of which 605 were included in the analysis. A majority of the participants stated they live in a rural area and 46% were in the office for up to 8 years. The mayors had predominantly a positive perception about telemedicine (60%) and 76% of them stated, their community would benefit from telemedicine. A GP shortage was reported by 39% of the participants. The highest risk of telemedicine was seen in misdiagnosing. In case of an emergency situation 291 (45%) of the participants considered data privacy as not as relevant. Mayors from a community with a perceived GP shortage had a more negative perception regarding telemedicine.

Conclusion

The acceptance of telemedicine is rapidly rising compared to former studies. Communities with a perceived GP shortage had a more negative perception. Barriers like data security concerns were seen as less important in case of an emergency. The highest risk of telemedicine was seen in misdiagnosing. These findings need to be considered in designing future telemedicine offers.

SUBMITTER: Weißenfeld MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8419374 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Facing rising inequities and poorer accessibility of physicians in rural areas, new healthcare delivery structures are being considered to support local healthcare in German communities. To better understand perspectives on and attitudes towards different supplementary models, we examined attitudes among local politicians in the German federal state of Lower Saxony towards the suitability of supplementary care models.As part of a cross-sectional study, we surveyed local politicians in Lower Saxony at the local authority and district levels (n =?449) by mail questionnaire. We asked for an assessment of four potential supplementary healthcare models at the local level: the use of trained medical assistants, patients' buses, mobile physicians' offices, and telemedicine.The response rate was 71.0% for mayors (n =?292) and 81.6% (n =?31) for county administrators. In summary, 72.4% of respondents supported the use of trained medical assistants, 48.9% voted for patients' buses, 22.0% for mobile physicians' offices, and 13.9% for telemedicine. Except for telemedicine, the politicians' approval of the supplementary models in rural areas was higher than in urban areas. The assessment regarding the suitability of each model was not significantly connected with indicators of a positively or negatively assessed local healthcare situation. The analyses showed that the use of trained medical assistants was associated with the positive effects of division of labor and potential to relieve physicians. In contrast, there was skepticism about technical support via telemedicine, mostly due to concerns about its unsuitability for elderly people and the potential lower quality of healthcare delivery.Local politicians widely accept the use of trained medical assistants, whereas the applicability of technical solutions such as telemedicine is perceived with skepticism. Therefore, the knowledge gap between evidence for and prejudices against telemedicine needs to be addressed more effectively. Reasons for the assessments of the presented models are more likely traceable to personal views than to assessments of the actual estimated local primary care situation.

Project description:Background: COVID-19 has brought to the fore an urgent need for secure information and communication technology (ICT) supported healthcare delivery, as the pertinence of infection control and social distancing continues. Telemedicine for paediatric care warrants special consideration around logistics, consent and assent, child welfare and communication that may differ to adult services. There is no systematic evidence synthesis available that outlines the implementation issues for incorporating telemedicine to paediatric services generally, or how users perceive these issues. Methods: We conducted a rapid mixed-methods evidence synthesis to identify barriers, facilitators, and documented stakeholder experiences of implementing paediatric telemedicine, to inform the pandemic response. A systematic search was undertaken by a research librarian in MEDLINE for relevant studies. All identified records were blind double-screened by two reviewers. Implementation-related data were extracted, and studies quality appraised using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Qualitative findings were analysed thematically and then mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Quantitative findings about barriers and facilitators for implementation were narratively synthesised. Results: We identified 27 eligible studies (19 quantitative; 5 mixed-methods, 3 qualitative). Important challenges highlighted from the perspective of the healthcare providers included issues with ICT proficiency, lack of confidence in the quality/reliability of the technology, connectivity issues, concerns around legal issues, increased administrative burden and/or fear of inability to conduct thorough examinations with reliance on subjective descriptions. Facilitators included clear dissemination of the aims of ICT services, involvement of staff throughout planning and implementation, sufficient training, and cultivation of telemedicine champions. Families often expressed preference for in-person visits but those who had tried tele-consultations, lived far from clinics, or perceived increased convenience with technology considered telemedicine more favourably. Concerns from parents included the responsibility of describing their child's condition in the absence of an in-person examination. Discussion: Healthcare providers and families who have experienced tele-consultations generally report high satisfaction and usability for such services. The use of ICT to facilitate paediatric healthcare consultations is feasible for certain clinical encounters and can work well with appropriate planning and quality facilities in place.

Project description:To improve health and academic learning in schoolchildren, the Active School programme in Stavanger, Norway has introduced physically active academic lessons. This is a teaching method combining physical activity with academic content. The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the response to the physically active lessons and identify facilitators and barriers for implementation of such an intervention.Five school leaders (principals or vice-principals), 13 teachers and 30 children from the five intervention schools were interviewed about their experiences with the 10-month intervention, which consisted of weekly minimum 2?×?45 minutes of physically active academic lessons, and the factors affecting its implementation. All interviews were transcribed and analysed using the qualitative data analysis program NVivo 10 (QSR international, London, UK). In addition, weekly teacher's intervention delivery logs were collected and analysed.On average, the physically active academic lessons in 18 of the 34 weeks (53%) were reported in the teacher logs. The number of delivered physically active academic lessons covered 73% of the schools' planned activity. Physically active lessons were well received among school leaders, teachers and children. The main facilitators for implementation of the physically active lessons were active leadership and teacher support, high self-efficacy regarding mastering the intervention, ease of organizing physically active lessons, inclusion of physically active lessons into the lesson curricula, and children's positive reception of the intervention. The main barriers were unclear expectations, lack of knowledge and time to plan the physiclly active lessons, and the length of the physically active lessons (15-20 min lessons were preferred over the 45 min lessons).Physically active academic lessons were considered an appropriate pedagogical method for creating positive variation, and were highly appreciated among both teachers and children. Both the principal and the teachers should be actively involved the implementation, which could be strengthened by including physical activity into the school's strategy. Barriers for implementing physically active lessons in schools could be lowered by increasing implementation clarity and introducing the teachers to high quality and easily organized lessons.Clinicaltrail.gov ID identifier: NCT03436355 . Retrospectively registered: 16th of Feb, 2018.

Project description:(1) Background: Personalised medicine (PM) is an innovative way to produce better patient outcomes by using an individualised or stratified approach to disease and treatment rather than a collective approach to treating patients. PM is a major challenge for all European healthcare systems. This article aims to identify the needs of citizens in terms of PM adaptation, as well as to provide insights into the barriers and facilitators categorised in relation to key stakeholders of their implementation. (2) Methods: This article presents data obtained from the survey "Barriers and facilitators of Personalised Medicine implementation-qualitative study under Regions4PerMed (H2020) project". Semi-structured questions were included in the above-mentioned survey. The questions included both structured and unstructured segments in an online questionnaire (Google Forms). Data were compiled into a data base. The results of the research were presented in the study. The number of people who participated in the survey can be considered an insufficient sample size for statistical measurement. In order to avoid collecting unreliable data, the questionnaires were sent to various stakeholders of the Regions4PerMed project, which includes members of the Advisory Board of the Regions4PerMed Project, but also speakers of conferences and workshops, and participants in these events. The professional profiles of the respondents are also diverse. (3) Results: The insights on what would help in the adaptation of Personal Medicine to citizen needs have been categorised into 7 areas of need: education; finances; dissemination; data protection/IT/data sharing; system changes/governmental level; cooperation/collaboration; public/citizens. Barriers and facilitators have been categorised into ten key stakeholders of the implementation barriers: government and government agencies; medical doctors/practitioners; healthcare system; healthcare providers; patients and patient organisations; medical sector, scientific community, researchers, stakeholders; industry; technology developers; financial institutions; media. (4) Conclusions: Barriers to the implementation of Personalised Medicine are observed across Europe. The barriers and facilitators mentioned in the article need to be effectively managed in healthcare systems across Europe. There is an urgent need to remove as many barriers as possible and create as many facilitators as possible to implement personalized medicine in the European system.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The field of eHealth has a history of more than 20 years. During that time, many different eHealth services were developed. However, factors influencing the adoption of such services were seldom the main focus of analyses. For this reason, organizations adopting and implementing eHealth services seem not to be fully aware of the barriers and facilitators influencing the integration of eHealth services into routine care. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this work is to provide (1) a comprehensive list of relevant barriers to be considered and (2) a list of facilitators or success factors to help in planning and implementing successful eHealth services. METHODS:For this study, a twofold approach was applied. First, we gathered experts' current opinions on facilitators and barriers in implementing eHealth services via expert discussions at two health informatics conferences held in Europe. Second, we conducted a systematic literature analysis concerning the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of eHealth services. Finally, we merged the results of the expert discussions with those of the systematic literature analysis. RESULTS:Both expert discussions (23 and 10 experts, respectively) identified 15 barriers and 31 facilitators, whereas 76 barriers and 268 facilitators were found in 38 of the initial 56 articles published from 12 different countries. For the analyzed publications, the count of distinct barriers reported ranged from 0 to 40 (mean 10.24, SD 8.87, median 8). Likewise, between 0 and 48 facilitators were mentioned in the literature (mean 9.18, SD 9.33, median 6). The combination of both sources resulted in 77 barriers and 292 facilitators for the adoption and implementation of eHealth services. CONCLUSIONS:This work contributes a comprehensive list of barriers and facilitators for the implementation and adoption of eHealth services. Addressing barriers early, and leveraging facilitators during the implementation, can help create eHealth services that better meet the needs of users and provide higher benefits for patients and caregivers.