A Conceptual Framework and Pilot Study for Examining Telemedicine Satisfaction Research

  • Robert GarciaEmail author
  • Olayele Adelakun
Patient Facing Systems


Stakeholder satisfaction is often considered a key to the success of telemedicine systems. However, it can be difficult to understand and compare satisfaction evaluations because of variations in reporting and study designs. This research will contribute to the knowledge by developing a conceptual framework around key concepts that relate to understanding studies on telemedicine satisfaction. The framework is built based on a developmental review of the telemedicine and telehealth literature obtained from searches of PubMed and Google Scholar. Using a conceptual matrix, researchers have synthesized the results into a framework that includes: satisfaction dimensions, stakeholders, type of care, type of system, context and methodologies. This research expands these concepts by discussing attributes of each and tests the framework by conducting a pilot study that identifies the concepts in primary study sources. The results of the framework and the pilot study are reported.


Telemedicine Telehealth Satisfaction Conceptual framework Review 



This research was funded through an internal university research council grant.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interest with respect to this research, its authorship and/or publication of this work.


  1. 1.
    Sood, S., Mbarika, V., Jugoo, S., Dookhy, R., Doarn, C. R., Prakash, N., and Merrell, R. C., What is telemedicine? A collection of 104 peer-reviewed perspectives and theoretical underpinnings. Telemed. e-Health 13(5):573–590, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    HRSA, How does telehealth differ from telemedicine? . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Accessed 6/30/2016 2016Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saliba, V., Legido-Quigley, H., Hallik, R., Aaviksoo, A., Car, J., and McKee, M., Telemedicine across borders: A systematic review of factors that hinder or support implementation. Int. J. Med. Inform. 81(12):793–809, 2012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pubmed., Home - Pubmed – NCBI, 2015.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kidholm, K., Ekeland, A. G., Jensen, L. K., Rasmussen, J., Pedersen, C. D., Bowes, A., Flottorp, S. A., and Bech, M., A model for assessment of telemedicine applications: Mast. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 28(1):44–51, 2012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vaezi, R., Mills, A., Chin, W., and Zafar, H., User satisfaction research in information systems: Historical roots and approaches. Comm. Assoc. Inform. Syst. 38(27):501–532, 2016.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Axelsson, K., and Melin, U., Contextual factors influencing health information systems implementation in public sector–investigating the explanatory power of critical success factors. International Conference on Electronic Government. Springer. 59–71, 2014.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ekeland, A. G., Bowes, A., and Flottorp, S., Methodologies for assessing telemedicine: A systematic review of reviews. Int J. Med. Inform. 81(1):1–11, 2012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun, Y., Wang, N., Guo, X., and Peng, Z., Understanding the acceptance of mobile health services: A comparison and integration of alternative models. J. Electron. Commerce Res. 14(2):183, 2013.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maillet, É., Mathieu, L., and Sicotte, C., Modeling factors explaining the acceptance, actual use and satisfaction of nurses using an electronic patient record in acute care settings: An extension of the UTAUT. Int. J. Med. Inform. 84(1):36–47, 2015.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garcia, R., and Adelakun, O., Towards a conceptual framework for the evaluation of telemedicine satisfaction. World Conference on Information Systems and Technologies. Springer, pp 1188–1197, 2018.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Imenda, S., Is there a conceptual difference between theoretical and conceptual frameworks? Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi/J. Soc. Sci. 38 (2), 2014.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Templier, M., and Paré, G., A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Comm. Assoc. Inform. Syst. 37, 2015.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Menachemi, N., Burke, D. E., and Ayers, D. J., Factors affecting the adoption of telemedicine—A multiple adopter perspective. J. Med. Syst. 28(6):617–632, 2004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Williams, T. L., May, C. R., and Esmail, A., Limitations of patient satisfaction studies in telehealthcare: A systematic review of the literature. Telemed. J. e-Health 7(4):293–316, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Whitten, P., and Love, B., Patient and provider satisfaction with the use of telemedicine: Overview and rationale for cautious enthusiasm. J. Postgrad. Med. 51(4):294, 2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chou, C.-Y., and Brauer, D. J., Temperament and satisfaction with health status among persons with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin. Nurse Spec. 19(2):94–100, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Linder-Pelz, S., and Struening, E. L., The multidimensionality of patient satisfaction with a clinic visit. J. Commun. Health 10(1):42–54, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garcia, R., Olayele, A., and Han, W., Defining dimensions of patient satisfaction with telemedicine: An analysis of existing measurement instruments. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2017.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mair, F., and Whitten, P., Systematic review of studies of patient satisfaction with telemedicine. Bmj 320(7248):1517–1520, 2000.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Masino, C., and Lam, T. C., Choice of rating scale labels: Implication for minimizing patient satisfaction response ceiling effect in telemedicine surveys. Telemed. e-Health 20(12):1150–1155, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weatherburn, G., Dowie, R., Mistry, H., and Young, T., An assessment of parental satisfaction with mode of delivery of specialist advice for paediatric cardiology: Face-to-face versus videoconference. J. Telemed. Telecare 12(suppl 1):57–59, 2006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Finkelstein, S. M., Speedie, S. M., Demiris, G., Veen, M., Lundgren, J. M., and Potthoff, S., Telehomecare: Quality, perception, satisfaction. Telemed. J. e-Health 10(2):122–128, 2004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kifle, M., Payton, F. C., Mbarika, V., and Meso, P., Transfer and adoption of advanced information technology solutions in resource-poor environments: The case of telemedicine systems adoption in Ethiopia. Telemed. e-Health 16(3):327–343, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang, S., McClean, S. I., Jackson, D. E., Nugent, C., and Cleland, I., Patient satisfaction evaluation of telemedicine applications is not satisfactory. XIII Mediterranean Conference on Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing 2013. Springer, pp 1140–1143, 2014.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y., Sheng, O. R. L., and Tam, K. Y., Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 16(2):91–112, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chau, P. Y., and Hu, P. J. H., Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: A model comparison approach. Dec. Sci. 32(4):699–719, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jansen-Kosterink, S., Vollenbroek-Hutten, M., and Hermens H., A renewed framework for the evaluation of telemedicine. Venice, Italy: 8th international conference on eHealth, telemedicine, and social medicine: eTELEMED, 2016.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ekeland, A. G., and Grøttland, A., Assessment of MAST in European patient-centered telemedicine pilots. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 31(5):304–311, 2015.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kidholm, K., Clemensen, J., Caffery, L. J., and Smith, A. C., The model for assessment of telemedicine (MAST): A scoping review of empirical studies. J. Telemed. Telecare 23(9):803–813, 2017.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kraai, I. H., Luttik, M., de Jong, R. M., Jaarsma, T., and Hillege, H., Heart failure patients monitored with telemedicine: Patient satisfaction, a review of the literature. J. Cardiac Fail. 17(8):684–690, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bakken, S., Grullon-Figueroa, L., Izquierdo, R., Lee, N.-J., Morin, P., Palmas, W., Teresi, J., Weinstock, R. S., Shea, S., and Starren, J., Development, validation, and use of English and Spanish versions of the telemedicine satisfaction and usefulness questionnaire. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 13(6):660–667, 2006.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yip, M., Chang, A. M., Chan, J., and MacKenzie, A. E., Development of the telemedicine satisfaction questionnaire to evaluate patient satisfaction with telemedicine: A preliminary study. J. Telemed. Telecare 9(1):46–50, 2003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van den Berg, M. H., Schoones, J. W., and Vlieland, T. P. V., Internet-based physical activity interventions: A systematic review of the literature. J. Med. Internet Res. 9(3):e26, 2007.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Webster, J., and Watson, R. T., Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS quarterly:Xiii-xxiii, 2002.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kruse, C. S., Krowski, N., Rodriguez, B., Tran, L., Vela, J., and Brooks, M., Telehealth and patient satisfaction: A systematic review and narrative analysis. BMJ open 7(8):e016242, 2017.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mounessa, J. S., Chapman, S., Braunberger, T., Qin, R., Lipoff, J.B., Dellavalle, R. P., and Dunnick, C. A., A systematic review of satisfaction with teledermatology. J. Telemed. Telecare:1357633X17696587, 2017.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hubley, S., Lynch, S. B., Schneck, C., Thomas, M., and Shore, J., Review of key telepsychiatry outcomes. World J. Psychiatr. 6(2):269, 2016.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., and Roth, K. P., Advancing formative measurement models. J. Bus. Res. 61(12):1203–1218, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hasselberg, M., Beer, N., Blom, L., Wallis, L. A., and Laflamme, L., Image-based medical expert teleconsultation in acute care of injuries. A systematic review of effects on information accuracy, diagnostic validity, clinical outcome, and user satisfaction. PloS one 9(6):e98539, 2014.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Leibowitz, R., Day, S., and Dunt, D., A systematic review of the effect of different models of after-hours primary medical care services on clinical outcome, medical workload, and patient and GP satisfaction. Family Pract. 20(3):311–317, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Piga, M., Cangemi, I., Mathieu, A., and Cauli, A., Telemedicine for patients with rheumatic diseases: Systematic review and proposal for research agenda. Sem. Arthrit. Rheumat., 2017. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Iseli, M. A., Kunz, R., and Blozik, E., Instruments to assess patient satisfaction after teleconsultation and triage: A systematic review. Pat. Pref. Adher. 8:893, 2014.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Whitten, P. S., and Mair, F., Telemedicine and patient satisfaction: Current status and future directions. Telemed. J. e-Health 6(4):417–423, 2000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bunn, F., Byrne, G., and Kendall, S., The effects of telephone consultation and triage on healthcare use and patient satisfaction: A systematic review. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 55(521):956–961, 2005.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Collins, K., Nicolson, P., and Bowns, I., Patient satisfaction in telemedicine. Health Inform. J. 6(2):81–85, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Harrison, S., Stadler, M., Ismail, K., Amiel, S., and Herrmann-Werner, A., Are patients with diabetes mellitus satisfied with technologies used to assist with diabetes management and coping?: A structured review. Diab. Technol. Therapeut. 16(11):771–783, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wixom, B. H., and Todd, P. A., A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Inform. Syst. Res. 16(1):85–102, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vaezi, R., User satisfaction with information systems. University of Houston, 2013.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Aoki, N., Dunn, K., Johnson-Throop, K. A., and Turley, J. P., Outcomes and methods in telemedicine evaluation. Telemed. J. e-Health 9(4):393–401, 2003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Pruitt, L. D., Luxton, D. D., and Johnson, K., Patient perceptions of telemental health: Systematic review of direct comparisons to in-person psychotherapeutic treatments. Telemed. e-Health 21(8):652–660, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Van Teijlingen, E. R., and Hundley, V., The importance of pilot studies, 2001.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Meldrum, M. L., A brief history of the randomized controlled trial: From oranges and lemons to the gold standard. Hematol./Oncol. Clin. North Am. 14(4):745–760, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Beijer, L. J., Rietveld, T. C., Hoskam, V., Geurts, A. C., and de Swart, B. J., Evaluating the feasibility and the potential efficacy of e-learning-based speech therapy (EST) as a web application for speech training in dysarthric patients with Parkinson's disease: A case study. Telemed. e-Health 16(6):732–738, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Carlisle, K., and Warren, R., A qualitative case study of telehealth for in-home monitoring to support the management of type 2 diabetes. J. Telemed. Telecare 19(7):372–375, 2013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gagnon, M.-P., Breton, E., Courcy, F., Quirion, S., Cote, J., and Pare, G., The influence of a wound care teleassistance service on nursing practice: A case study in Quebec. Telemed. e-Health 20(6):593–600, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Katalinic, O., Young, A., and Doolan, D., Case study: The interact home telehealth project. J. Telemed. Telecare 19(7):418–424, 2013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Khoja, S., Casebeer, A., and Young, S., Role of telehealth in seating clinics: A case study of learners' perspectives. J. Telemed. Telecare 11(3):146–149, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Oliver, D. P., and Demiris, G., Comparing face-to-face and telehealth-mediated delivery of a psychoeducational intervention: A case comparison study in hospice. Telemed. e-Health 16(6):751–753, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Agha, Z., Schapira, R. M., Laud, P. W., McNutt, G., and Roter, D. L., Patient satisfaction with physician–patient communication during telemedicine. Telemed. e-Health 15(9):830–839, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Buvik, A., Bugge, E., Knutsen, G., Småbrekke, A., and Wilsgaard, T., Patient satisfaction with remote orthopaedic consultation by using telemedicine: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of telemedicine and telecare:1357633X18783921, 2018.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Chumbler, N. R., Li, X., Quigley, P., Morey, M. C., Rose, D., Griffiths, P., Sanford, J., and Hoenig, H., A randomized controlled trial on stroke telerehabilitation: The effects on falls self-efficacy and satisfaction with care. J. Telemed. Telecare 21(3):139–143, 2015.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gulec, H., Moessner, M., Túry, F., Fiedler, P., Mezei, A., and Bauer, S., A randomized controlled trial of an internet-based posttreatment care for patients with eating disorders. Telemed. e-Health 20(10):916–922, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hulsbosch, A. M., Nugter, M. A., Tamis, P., and Kroon, H., Videoconferencing in a mental health service in the Netherlands: A randomized controlled trial on patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes for outpatients with severe mental illness. J. Telemed. Telecare 23(5):513–520, 2017.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Marhefka, S. L., Buhi, E. R., Baldwin, J., Chen, H., Johnson, A., Lynn, V., and Glueckauf, R., Effectiveness of healthy relationships video-group—A videoconferencing group intervention for women living with HIV: Preliminary findings from a randomized controlled trial. Telemed e-Health 20(2):128–134, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dixon, R. F., and Stahl, J. E., Virtual visits in a general medicine practice: A pilot study. Telemed. e-Health 14(6):525–530, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Elford, D., White, H., St John, K., Maddigan, B., Ghandi, M., and Bowering, R., A prospective satisfaction study and cost analysis of a pilot child telepsychiatry service in Newfoundland. J. Telemed. Telecare 7(2):73–81, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mulgrew, K. W., Shaikh, U., and Nettiksimmons, J., Comparison of parent satisfaction with care for childhood obesity delivered face-to-face and by telemedicine. Telemed. e-Health 17(5):383–387, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Prabhakaran, L., Chee, W. Y., Chua, K. C., Abisheganaden, J., and Wong, W. M., The use of text messaging to improve asthma control: A pilot study using the mobile phone short messaging service (SMS). J. Telemed. Telecare 16(5):286–290, 2010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Tousignant, M., Boissy, P., Moffet, H., Corriveau, H., Cabana, F., Marquis, F., and Simard, J., Patients' satisfaction of healthcare services and perception with in-home telerehabilitation and physiotherapists' satisfaction toward technology for post-knee arthroplasty: An embedded study in a randomized trial. Telemed. e-Health 17(5):376–382, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Verwey, R., van der Weegen, S., Spreeuwenberg, M., Tange, H., van der Weijden, T., and de Witte, L., A pilot study of a tool to stimulate physical activity in patients with COPD or type 2 diabetes in primary care. J. Telemed. Telecare 20(1):29–34, 2014.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Tchero, H., Noubou, L., Becsangele, B., Mukisi-Mukaza, M., Retali, G.-R., and Rusch, E., Telemedicine in diabetic foot care: A systematic literature review of interventions and meta-analysis of controlled trials. Int. J. Lower Extrem. Wounds 0(0):1534734617739195, 2017. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DePaul UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations