↓ Skip to main content

Healthcare professional and manager perceptions on drivers, benefits, and challenges of telemedicine: results from a cross-sectional survey in the Italian NHS

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, October 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Healthcare professional and manager perceptions on drivers, benefits, and challenges of telemedicine: results from a cross-sectional survey in the Italian NHS
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, October 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12913-023-10100-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Grazia Antonacci, Elisabetta Benevento, Sveva Bonavitacola, Lorella Cannavacciuolo, Emanuela Foglia, Giulia Fusi, Elisabetta Garagiola, Cristina Ponsiglione, Alessandro Stefanini

Abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic provided new challenges and opportunities for patients and healthcare providers while accelerating the trend of digital healthcare transformation. This study explores the perspectives of healthcare professionals and managers on (i) drivers to the implementation of telemedicine services and (ii) perceived benefits and challenges related to the use of telemedicine across the Italian National Health Service. An online cross-sectional survey was distributed to professionals working within 308 healthcare organisations in different Italian regions. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire (June-September 2021). Responses were analysed using summary statistics and thematic analysis. Key factors driving the adoption of telemedicine have been grouped into (i) organisational drivers (reduce the virus spread-80%; enhance care quality and efficiency-61%), (ii) technological drivers (ease of use-82%; efficacy and reliability-64%; compliance with data governance regulations-64%) and (iii) regulatory drivers (regulations' semplification-84%). Nearly all respondents perceive telemedicine as useful in improving patient care (96%). The main benefits reported by respondents are shorter waiting lists, reduced Emergency Department attendance, decreased patient and clinician travel, and more frequent patient-doctor interactions. However, only 7% of respondents believe that telemedicine services are more effective than traditional care and 66% of the healthcare professionals believe that telemedicine can't completely substitute in-person visits due to challenges with physical examination and patient-doctor relationships. Other reported challenges include poor quality and interoperability of telemedicine platforms and scarce integration of telemedicine with traditional care services. Moreover, healthcare professionals believe that some groups of patients experience difficulties in accessing and using the technologies due to socio-cultural factors, technological and linguistic challenges and the absence of caregivers. Respondents believe that telemedicine can be useful to complement and augment traditional care. However, many challenges still need to be overcome to fully consider telemedicine a standard of care. Strategies that could help address these challenges include additional regulations on data governance and reimbursements, evidence-based guidelines for the use of telemedicine, greater integration of tools and processes, patient-centred training for clinicians, patient-facing material to assist patients in navigating virtual sessions, different language options, and greater involvement of caregivers in the care process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 5%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 20 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 20 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2023.
All research outputs
#14,903,886
of 24,969,131 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,178
of 8,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,681
of 328,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#84
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,969,131 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,074 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.