4.3 Article

Perceived Usefulness of Increased Telemedicine Use by Pediatric Subspecialists: A National Survey

Journal

TELEMEDICINE AND E-HEALTH
Volume 28, Issue 9, Pages 1367-1373

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2021.0583

Keywords

telemedicine; telehealth; subspecialty

Funding

  1. Health Resources and Services Administration NRSA for Primary Care Research Award [T32 HP22240]
  2. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [K23HD088642]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the perceived usefulness of telemedicine in pediatric subspecialty care and found that most physicians believe that increased use of telemedicine can improve child health and access to care, but may have a slight negative impact on the clinician experience.
Introduction: Although many studies have explored the perceived ease-of-use of telemedicine, the perceived usefulness of telemedicine for pediatric subspecialty care is less clear.Methods: We invited a national sample of 840 general pediatricians and 840 pediatric subspecialists to participate in a survey fielded in May-June 2020. Respondents ranked perceptions of usefulness of telemedicine for pediatric subspecialty care on a 5-point Likert scale and prioritization of potential strategies to support telemedicine use on a 4-point scale.Results: Of 285 respondents (18% response rate), physicians perceived that increased telemedicine use by pediatric subspecialists would modestly improve child health (mean = 3.5, standard deviation [SD] = 0.7), and access to care (mean = 3.9, SD = 0.6), but would slightly worsen the clinician experience (mean = 2.8, SD = 0.8). Most respondents highly prioritized payment-related strategies to support use of telemedicine.Conclusions: Pediatric clinicians anticipated that increased telemedicine use by pediatric subspecialists would improve child health and health care access but would worsen clinician experience.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available