4.7 Article

Barriers to Video Call-Based Telehealth in Allied Health Professions and Nursing: Scoping Review and Mapping Process

Journal

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

Publisher

JMIR PUBLICATIONS, INC
DOI: 10.2196/46715

Keywords

telehealth; telemedicine; eHealth; barriers; allied health professions; nursing; video call; videoconferencing; web-based consultation; remote consultation; mobile phone

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to identify and map the perceived barriers to the use of video call-based telehealth interventions among allied health professionals and nurses. After conducting 56 studies in various countries, the barriers were categorized into 8 main categories and 23 subcategories. Common barriers included technology issues, practice issues, patient issues, environmental issues, attributions, interpersonal issues, policies and regulations, and administration issues.
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.

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