3.8 Article

Cardiovascular disease prevention for underserved patients using the internet: Bridging the digital divide

期刊

TELEMEDICINE JOURNAL AND E-HEALTH
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 58-65

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2006.12.58

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL 065073] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For underserved populations, telemedicine can address the high prevalence and suboptimal control of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. However, Internet access issues may limit the successful application of telemedicine. We tested the hypothesis that computer skills, and not access per se, was the main obstacle to using the Internet for health care. After informed consent, 44 participants with little or no computer experience received 2 hours of training covering 14 basic computer use skills, Internet access, and our telemedicine system. The telemedicine system enables reporting blood pressure, weight, physical activity, cigarette use, provider feedback, personal medication information, and educational information about CVD risk factors. The patient population included 12 males and 32 females. Of this total were 23 African Americans. The average patient age was 60.4 +/- 3 years, and 64% had annual family incomes under $25,000. Eighty-two percent of the participants averaged 4 or higher (on a scale of 1 to 5) on basic computer skills. Only 11% had an average score below 3. Thirty-seven of 44 participants reported on their health status from a local Internet access site within 10 days. Participants' successful use of the telemedicine system was not correlated with age, gender, education level, or ownership of a computer. Computer skill score had a positive effect on system use. Underserved populations without computer experience or skills and at increased risk for CVD can be educated to use an Internet telemedicine system to communicate health status to their health care providers. Ownership of a computer was not a factor that predicted system use.

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