The Effect of Perceived Risks on Doctors’ Telemedicine Adoption: A Structural Equation Modelling Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/mw2023112Keywords:
Structural equation modeling (SEM), Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Regression Analysis, Communication, TelemedicineAbstract
The explosive increase in telemedicine has revolutionized the distribution of health care by providing sufficient benefits in terms of ease and access. However, the perceived risks using the health care provider's desire to use telemedicine system, which is important for their success. Research examines how perceived risks influence physicians' intentions to adopt telemedicine, with a focus on communication dynamics between healthcare professionals and telemedicine providers. By analyzing the relationships between risk perceptions, attitudes, and adoption behavior using structural equation modelling (SEM), research highlights the critical role that communication plays in shaping doctors' adoption decisions. A standardized questionnaire was used to gather information from 300 doctors across a range of medical disciplines. Seven key factors were examined: perceived advantages, technological difficulty, privacy risk, financial risk, social risk, performance risk, and trust in telemedicine. To uncover the underlying structure of these factors and the role of communication in managing perceived risks, the data were initially set through an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Regression analysis then explored how these variables influenced adoption intentions. The findings revealed that while financial and social concerns had a minor impact, performance and privacy issues considerably reduced physicians' willingness to use telemedicine. Adoption intentions were positively impacted by perceived advantages; trust in telemedicine, and effective communication about the technology's benefits. Research provides insight into factors affecting telemedicine decision, addresses alleged risk to health care leaders and decision makers and advises to build trust through effective communication strategies.
References
1. Manning LA, Gillespie CM. E-Health and telemedicine in otolaryngology: Risks and rewards. Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America. 2021 Nov 22;55(1):145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2021.07.011
2. Ryskina KL, Shultz K, Zhou Y, Lautenbach G, Brown RT. Older adults' access to primary care: Gender, racial, and ethnic disparities in telemedicine. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2021 Oct;69(10):2732-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.17354
3. Socarrás MR, Loeb S, Teoh JY, Ribal MJ, Bloemberg J, Catto J, N’Dow J, Van Poppel H, Rivas JG. Telemedicine and smart working: recommendations of the European Association of Urology. European urology. 2020 Dec 1;78(6):812-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.06.031
4. Abugabah A, Nizamuddin N, Alzubi AA. Decentralized telemedicine framework for a smart healthcare ecosystem. Ieee Access. 2020 Sep 4;8:166575-88. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3021823
5. Duarte SS, Nguyen TA, Koch C, Williams K, Murphy JD. Remote obstetric anesthesia: leveraging telemedicine to improve fetal and maternal outcomes. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2020 Aug 1;26(8):967-72. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2019.0174
6. Staicu ML, Holly AM, Conn KM, Ramsey A. The use of telemedicine for penicillin allergy skin testing. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. 2018 Nov 1;6(6):2033-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2018.04.038
7. Tedeschi C. Ethical, legal, and social challenges in the development and implementation of disaster telemedicine. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness. 2021 Oct;15(5):649-56. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.118
8. Leighton C, Conroy M, Bilderback A, Kalocay W, Henderson JK, Simhan HN. Implementation and impact of a maternal–fetal medicine telemedicine program. American Journal of Perinatology. 2019 Jun;36(07):751-8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1675158
9. Botrugno C. Telemedicine in daily practice: addressing legal challenges while waiting for an EU regulatory framework. Health Policy and Technology. 2018 Jun 1;7(2):131-6.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2018.04.003
10. Luciano E, Mahmood MA, Mansouri Rad P. Telemedicine adoption issues in the United States and Brazil: Perception of healthcare professionals. Health informatics journal. 2020 Dec;26(4):2344-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458220902957
11. Gilmore AK, Ward-Ciesielski EF. Perceived risks and use of psychotherapy via telemedicine for patients at risk for suicide. Journal of telemedicine and telecare. 2019 Jan;25(1):59-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X17735559
12. Bokolo AJ. Exploring the adoption of telemedicine and virtual software for care of outpatients during and after COVID-19 pandemic. Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971-). 2021 Feb;190(1):1-0. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-020-02299-z
13. Kaium MA, Bao Y, Alam MZ, Hoque MR. Understanding continuance usage intention of mHealth in a developing country: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing. 2020 May 21;14(2):251-72. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPHM-06-2019-0041
14. Buvik A, Bergmo TS, Bugge E, Smaabrekke A, Wilsgaard T, Olsen JA. Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in remote orthopedic consultations: randomized controlled trial. Journal of medical Internet research. 2019 Feb 19;21(2):e11330. https://doi.org/10.2196/11330
15. Wernhart A, Gahbauer S, Haluza D. eHealth and telemedicine: Practices and beliefs among healthcare professionals and medical students at a medical university. PloS one. 2019 Feb 28;14(2):e0213067. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213067
16. Mohammed KI, Zaidan AA, Zaidan BB, Albahri OS, Alsalem MA, Albahri AS, Hadi A, Hashim M. Real-time remote-health monitoring systems: a review on patients prioritisation for multiple-chronic diseases, taxonomy analysis, concerns and solution procedure. Journal of medical systems. 2019 Jul;43:1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-019-1362-x
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Neha Rana, Samir Sahu, Jamuna KV (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
