4.1 Article

Telemedicine Practice in Saudi Arabia During the COVID-19 Pandemic

期刊

CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.12004

关键词

telemedicine; saudi arabia; technology; e-health; covid-19

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increased use of telemedicine. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate attitudes and behaviors of licensed physicians in the region to telemedicine. Methodology: A cross-sectional design using an electronic survey as the primary tool was done. The questionnaire had a demographic component of the respondent (first part), covering age, specialty, and experience with telemedicine during the COVID pandemic, and a second part, which was in the form of a Likert scale, covering perceptions related to telemedicine. The Likert scale itself had two main areas: (1) attitudes toward telemedicine and (2) perceived barriers. Results: There were 392 valid responses of which 228 (58.1%) had used some form of telemedicine (other than standard phone calls) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The most common platforms used telemedicine include WhatsApp (R) (211, 53.8%), atom (R) (131, 33.4%), Microsoft Teams (R) (27, 6.2%), Sehha App (65, 16.5%), Email (84, 21.4%). There was a strong agreement on the following statements: Telemedicine can reduce unnecessary outpatient visits (87.5%), Effectiveness of telemedicine depends on the specialty (89.5%), and Telemedicine can be used to monitor chronic patients from home (88.3%). Concerning the barriers to telemedicine, the ones having the most concordance were technological limitations (66.6%) and concerns of diagnostic reliability (66.1%). Conclusions: The responses from our study seem to suggest that while the attitudes toward telemedicine are positive, practicing physicians are concerned about a perceived lack of clarity regarding related legal frameworks and barriers such as technological issues, cultural factors, and diagnostic concordance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据