4.7 Article

Patient Use, Experience, and Satisfaction With Telehealth in an Australian Population (Reimagining Health Care): Web-Based Survey Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH
Volume 25, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

JMIR PUBLICATIONS, INC
DOI: 10.2196/45016

Keywords

telehealth; consumer experience; demographic influence; population survey; health care survey; telemedicine; Australia; participant recruitment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the experience of Australian people who engaged in telehealth consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic and the demographic factors influencing their engagement. The results showed that 88.3% of the participants had engaged in some type of healthcare consultation in the previous 12 months, and 69.3% of those had used telehealth. Older people were more likely to have a healthcare consultation but less likely to have a telehealth consultation. Participants with a bachelor's degree or above were more likely to use telehealth and have a positive experience.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a rapid scale-up of telehealth services in Australia as a means to provide continued care through periods of physical restrictions. The factors that influence engagement in telehealth remain unclear. Objective: The purpose of this study is to understand the experience of Australian people who engaged in a telehealth consultation during the pandemic period (2020-2021) and the demographic factors that influence engagement. Methods: A web-based survey was distributed to Australians aged over 18 years that included 4 questions on frequency and type of clinical consultation, including with a general practitioner (GP), specialist, allied health, or nurse; 1 question on the experience of telehealth; and 2 questions on the quality of and satisfaction with telehealth. Statistical analysis included proportion of responses (of positive responses where a Likert scale was used) and regression analyses to determine the effect of demographic variables. Results: Of the 1820 participants who completed the survey, 88.3% (1607/1820) had engaged in a health care consultation of some type in the previous 12 months, and 69.3% (1114/1607) of those had used telehealth. The most common type of consultation was with a GP (959/1114, 86.1%). Older people were more likely to have had a health care consultation but less likely to have had a telehealth consultation. There was no difference in use of telehealth between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan regions; however, people with a bachelor's degree or above were more likely to have used telehealth and to report a positive experience. A total of 87% (977/1114) of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they had received the information they required from their consultation, 71% (797/1114) agreed or strongly agreed that the outcome of their consultation was the same as it would have been face-to-face, 84% (931/1114) agreed or strongly agreed that the doctor or health care provider made them feel comfortable, 83% (924/1114) agreed or strongly agreed that the doctor or health care provider was equally as knowledgeable as providers they have seen in person; 57% (629/1114) of respondents reported that they would not have been able to access their health consultation if it were not for telehealth; 69% (765/1114) of respondents reported that they were satisfied with their telehealth consultation, and 60% (671/1114) reported that they would choose to continue to use telehealth in the future. Conclusions: There was a relatively high level of engagement with telehealth over the 12 months leading up to the study period, and the majority of participants reported a positive experience and satisfaction with their telehealth consultation. While there was no indication that remoteness influenced telehealth usage, there remains work to be done to improve access to older people and those with less than a bachelor's degree.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available