3.8 Article

Factors that determine the intention to use telemedicine in a healthcare organisation

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEALTHCARE QUALITY RESEARCH
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 319-328

出版社

ELSEVIER ESPANA SLU
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhqr.2018.08.004

关键词

Telemedicine; Organisational innovation; Surveys and Questionnaires

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: There are numerous factors and barriers that hinder the use of telemedicine, among which some aspects of the organisation stand out. Thus, it would be interesting to determine its intention to use it in a health institution. The objective of this paper was to identify the factors that influence the intent to use telemedicine by the group of professionals of the Andalusian Health Service and the type of professionals based on the use and expectations of (information and communications technology (ICT). Methods: A specific questionnaire was designed based on an extended Model of Technological Acceptance that was distributed to a sample of 2,847 professionals of all the categories of this institution. A univariate analysis, exploratory factor analysis and logistic regression were carried out to determine those explanatory variables that are related to the use of telemedicine. Results: A total of 424 responses were obtained. The study determined that the institution's support, perceived usefulness and ease of use (P<.05) were factors that influence the use of telemedicine. The support of the workers and the technological profile of the professionals (P<.05) were significant. Conclusions: Due to there being a high number of factors in health services, it is possible to find differences between the explanatory models in each specific organisation. For this reason, studies need to be carried out before the implantation and use of telemedicine systems in order to identify which of the possible variables influence favourable adoption as a prerequisite for the generalised use of telemedicine. (C) 2018 FECA. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

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

3.8
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