Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 

About: Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare is an academic journal published by SAGE Publishing. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Telemedicine & Telehealth. It has an ISSN identifier of 1357-633X. Over the lifetime, 3169 publications have been published receiving 84172 citations.

Telehealth for global emergencies: Implications for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Abstract: The current coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is again reminding us of the importance of using telehealth to deliver care, especially as means of reducing the risk of cross-contamination caused by close contact. For telehealth to be effective as part of an emergency response it first needs to become a routinely used part of our health system. Hence, it is time to step back and ask why telehealth is not mainstreamed. In this article, we highlight key requirements for this to occur. Strategies to ensure that telehealth is used regularly in acute, post-acute and emergency situations, alongside conventional service delivery methods, include flexible funding arrangements, training and accrediting our health workforce. Telehealth uptake also requires a significant change in management effort and the redesign of existing models of care. Implementing telehealth proactively rather than reactively is more likely to generate greater benefits in the long-term, and help with the everyday (and emergency) challenges in healthcare.

Evaluating barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide: A systematic review

Abstract: Introduction and objective Studies on telemedicine have shown success in reducing the geographical and time obstacles incurred in the receipt of care in traditional modalities with the same or greater effectiveness; however, there are several barriers that need to be addressed in order for telemedicine technology to spread. The aim of this review is to evaluate barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide through the analysis of published work. Methods The authors conducted a systematic literature review by extracting the data from the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PubMed (MEDLINE) research databases. The reviewers in this study analysed 30 articles (nine from CINAHL and 21 from Medline) and identified barriers found in the literature. This review followed the checklist from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009. The reviewers organized the results into one table and five figures that depict the data in different ways, organized by: barrier, country-specific barriers, organization-specific barriers, patient-specific barriers, and medical-staff and programmer-specific barriers. Results The reviewers identified 33 barriers with a frequency of 100 occurrences through the 30 articles. The study identified the issues with technically challenged staff (11%), followed by resistance to change (8%), cost (8%), reimbursement (5%), age of patient (5%), and level of education of patient (5%). All other barriers occurred at or less than 4% of the time. Discussion and conclusions Telemedicine is not yet ubiquitous, and barriers vary widely. The top barriers are technology-specific and could be overcome through training, change-management techniques, and alternating delivery by telemedicine and personal patient-to-provider interaction. The results of this study identify several barriers that could be eliminated by focused policy. Future work should evaluate policy to identify which one to lever to maximize the results.

Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management – an evidence synthesis

Abstract: A literature review was conducted to obtain a high-level view of the value of telemedicine in the management of five common chronic diseases (asthma, COPD, diabetes, heart failure, hypertension). A total of 141 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was identified, in which 148 telemedicine interventions of various kinds had been tested in a total of 37,695 patients. The value of each intervention was categorised in terms of the outcomes specified by the investigators in that trial, i.e. no attempt was made to extract a common outcome from all studies, as would be required for a conventional meta-analysis. Summarizing the value of these interventions shows, first, that most studies have reported positive effects (n = 108), and almost none have reported negative effects (n = 2). This suggests publication bias. Second, there were no significant differences between the chronic diseases, i.e. telemedicine seems equally effective (or ineffective) in the diseases studied. Third, most studies have been relatively short-term (median duration 6 months). It seems unlikely that in a chronic disease, any intervention can have much effect unless applied for a long period. Finally, there have been very few studies of cost-effectiveness. Thus the evidence base for the value of telemedicine in managing chronic diseases is on the whole weak and contradictory.

Determinants of successful telemedicine implementations: a literature study

Abstract: Telemedicine implementations often remain in the pilot phase and do not succeed in scaling-up to robust products that are used in daily practice. We conducted a qualitative literature review of 45 conference papers describing telemedicine interventions in order to identify determinants that had influenced their implementation. The identified determinants, which would influence the future implementation of telemedicine interventions, can be classified into five major categories: (i) Technology, (ii) Acceptance (iii) Financing, (iv) Organization and (v) Policy and Legislation. Each category contains determinants that are relevant to different stakeholders in different domains. We propose a layered implementation model in which the primary focus on individual determinants changes throughout the development life cycle of the telemedicine implementation. For success, a visionary approach is required from the multidisciplinary stakeholders, which goes beyond tackling specific issues in a particular development phase. Thus the right philosophy is: ‘start small, think big’.

A systematic review of the benefits of home telecare for frail elderly people and those with long-term conditions:

Abstract: We have conducted a systematic review of home telecare for frail elderly people and for patients with chronic conditions. We searched 17 electronic databases, the reference lists of identified studies, conference proceedings and Websites for studies available in January 2006. We identified summaries of 8666 studies, which were assessed independently for relevance by two reviewers. Randomized controlled trials of any size and observational studies with 80 or more participants were eligible for inclusion if they examined the effects of using telecommunications technology to (a) monitor vital signs or safety and security in the home, or (b) provide information and support. The review included 68 randomized controlled trials (69%) and 30 observational studies with 80 or more participants (31%). Most studies focused on people with diabetes (31%) or heart failure (29%). Almost two-thirds (64%) of the studies originated in the US; more than half (55%) had been published within the previous three years. Based on the evidence reviewed, the most effective telecare interventions appear to be automated vital signs monitoring (for reducing health service use) and telephone follow-up by nurses (for improving clinical indicators and reducing health service use). The cost-effectiveness of these interventions was less certain. There is insufficient evidence about the effects of home safety and security alert systems. It is important to note that just because there is insufficient evidence about some interventions, this does not mean that those interventions have no effect.