Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 74, Issue 7, pp 2483–2497

Users’ perception on telemedicine service: a comparative study of public healthcare and private healthcare

  • Mi Jung Rho
  • Kun Ho Yoon
  • Hun-Sung Kim
  • In Young Choi
Article

Abstract

Telemedicine services have been applied in public healthcare and private healthcare. Despite the different characteristics of healthcare services, the service models have been designed very similarly. Telemedicine services should be designed to reflect the characteristics of their own and their users’ perceptions of service. Thus, this comparative study was undertaken to examine the perceptions of telemedicine services between public healthcare users and private healthcare users. This study collected 192 samples, using paper-based surveys, from two groups: public (n = 101) and private healthcare service users (n = 81). We performed two independent samples t-tests depending on the group to measure the differences in satisfaction and continuous intention to use, as well as the perception of the telemedicine service. Multiple regression analysis was performed to compare influential factors in continuous intention to use regarding public healthcare users and private healthcare users. The two groups had significantly different perceptions of both perceived risk and satisfaction (p < 0.05). Private healthcare users expressed greater satisfaction with telemedicine services than did public healthcare users, whereas private healthcare users felt less worry about perceived risk. Both groups perceived that telemedicine was useful and easy to use for healthcare service, expressing higher intentions to use. In both groups, perceived usefulness and ease of use had positive effects on continuous intention to use (p < 0.05). In public healthcare users only, satisfaction was found to be an important variable that increased intention to use (p < 0.05). Perceived risk had no relationship with continuous intention to use in either group. This study provides insight into understanding the users of telemedicine services and guidelines for developing appropriate telemedicine service models, depending whether it is public healthcare or private healthcare.

Keywords

Telemedicine service Public healthcare Private healthcare Perceived risk Satisfaction Continuous intention to use 

References

  1. 1.
    Bahaadinbeigy K, Yogesan K, Wootton R (2010) A survey of the state of telemedicine in Western Australian. Telemed Telecare 16(4):176–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basoglu N, Daim TU, Topacan U (2010) Determining patient preferences for remote monitoring. J Med Syst 36(3):1389–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bon VAC, Kohinor MJE, Hoekstra JBL, Basum GV, DeVries JH (2010) Patients’ perception and future acceptance of an artificial pancreas. J Diabetes Sci Technol 4(3):596–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buysse HEC, Coorevits P, Maele GV, Hutse A, Kaufman J, Ruige J, De Moor GJE (2010) Introducing telemonitoring for diabetic patients: development of a telemonitoring ‘Health Effect and Readiness’ questionnaire. Int J Med Inform 79(8):576–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cardozo L, Steinberg J (2010) Telemedicine for recently discharged older patients. Telemed J E Health 16(1):49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cho JH, Lee HC, Lim DJ, Kwon HS, Yoon KH (2009) Mobile communication using a mobile phone with a glucometer for glucose control in Type 2 patients with diabetes: as effective as an Internet-based glucose monitoring system. J Telemed Telecare 15(2):77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cocosila M, Archer N (2009) An empirical investigation of mobile health adoption in preventive interventions. Bled 2009 Proceedings; 22nd Bled eConference; June 14-17, Bled, Slovenia. 2009Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hung SY, Tsai JCA, Chuang CC (2013) Investigating primary health care nurses’ intention to use information technology: an empirical study in Taiwan. Decis Support Syst 57:331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jen WY (2010) The adoption of mobile weight management services in a virtual community: the perspective of college students. Telemed E Health 16(4):490–497. doi:10.1089/tmj.2009.0126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jorgensen HR, Turolla A, Piron L, Pedersen M, Agostini M, Larsen T (2011) Implementation of a telerehabilitation program in an EHSD model of care for persons with a stroke. Int J Integr Care 11:e105Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jung EY, Kim JH, Chung KY, Park DK (2013) Home health gateway based healthcare services through u-health platform. Wirel Pers Commun. doi:10.1007/s11277-013-1231-8 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kang J, Chun H, Shin IH, Shin SD, Suh GJ, Kim HC (2006) Preliminary evaluation of the use of a CDMA-based emergency telemedicine system. J Telemed Telecare 12(8):422–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kearns JW, Bowerman D, Kemmis K, Izquierdo RE, Wade M, Weinstock RS (2012) Group diabetes education administered through telemedicine: tools used and lessons learned. Telemed J E Health 18(5):347–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim BS (2011) U-healthcare & medical information system of status and operative challenges for integrated medical information system. J Digit Policy Manag 9(5):65–75Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim JH, Lee D, Chung KY (2013) Item recommendation based on context-aware model for personalized u-healthcare service. Multimed Tools Appl. doi:10.1007/s11042-011-0920-0 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee JB, Rho MJ (2013) The perception of influencing factors on acceptance of mobile health monitoring service: a comparison between users and non‐users. Healthc Inform Res 19(3):167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lim N (2003) Consumers’ perceived risk: sources versus consequences. Electron Commer Res Appl 2(3):216–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lim S, Kim SY, Kim JI, Kwon MK, Min SJ, Yoo SY, Kang SM, Kim HI, Jung HS, Park KS, Ryu JO, Hl S, Jang HC (2011) A survey on ubiquitous healthcare service demand among diabetic patients. Diabetes Metab J 35(1):50–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Littman-Quinn R, Chandra A, Schwartz A, Fadlelmola FM, Ghose S, Luberti AA, Tatarsky A, Chihanga S, Ramogola-Masire D, Steenhoff A, Kovarik C (2011) mHealth applications for telemedicine and public health intervention in Botswana, IST-Africa Conference Proceedings, 2011Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mair FS, Goldstein P, May C, Angus R, Shiels C, Hibbert D, O’Connor J, Boland A, Roberts C, Haycox A, Capewell S (2005) Patient and provider perspectives on home telecare: preliminary results from a randomized controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare 11(1):95–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Manaf NHA (2012) Inpatient satisfaction: an analysis of Malaysian public hospitals. Int J Public Sect Manag 25(1):6–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mariappan M, Khoo B (2013) Design and development of communication and control platform for Medical Tele-diagnosis Robot (MTR). Int J Netw Commun 3(1):12–20. doi:10.5923/j.ijnc.20130301.02 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martinez A, Everss E, Rojo-Alvarez JL, Figal DP, Garcia-Alberola A (2006) A systematic review of the literature on home monitoring for patients with heart failure. J Telemed Telecare 12(5):234–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ministry of knowledge economy press releases (Cite 2010 May 12). Available from: http://www.mke.go.kr/news/coverage/bodoView.jsp?seq=61367&pageNo=1&srchType=1&srchWord=u-Health, 세계 최초로&pCtx=1
  26. 26.
    Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paim J, Travassos C, Almeida C, Bahia L, Macinko J (2011) The Brazilian health system: history, advances, and challenges. Lancet 377:1778–1797. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60054-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Park HY, Chon YC, Lee JS, Choi IJ, Yoon KH (2011) Service design attributes affecting diabetic patient preferences of telemedicine in South Korea. Telemed J E Health 17(6):442–451CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rai A, Chen L, Pye J, Baird A (2013) Understanding determinants of consumer mobile health usage intentions, assimilation, and channel preferences. J Med Internet Res 15(8):e149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rezende EJC, Tavares EC, Alves HJ, Santos ADFD, Melo MDCBD (2013) Teleconsultations in public primary care units of the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil: profile of patients and physicians. Telemed J E Health 19(8):613–618. doi:10.1089/tmj.2012.0179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rho MJ, Bae JK (2013) The physicians’ expected benefits: an empirical study of the telemedicine system acceptance. J Converg Inf Technol 8(12). doi:10.4156/jcit.vol8.issue12.2
  32. 32.
    Rimner T, Blozik E, Begley C, Grandchamp C, von Overbeck J (2011) Patient adherence to recommendations after teleconsultation: survey of patients from a telemedicine centre in Switzerland. J Telemed Telecare 17(5):235–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Singh R, Mathiassen L, Stachura ME, Astapova EV (2010) Sustainable rural telehealth innovation: a public health case study. Health Serv Res 45(4):985–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Talukdar R, Reddy N (2012) Making endoscopy mobile: a novel initiative for public healthcare. Endoscopy 44(02):186–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Teijeiro T, Félix P, Presedo J, Zamarrón C (2013) An open platform for the protocolization of home medical supervision. Expert Syst Appl 40(7):2607–2614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wen-Yuan J (2010) The adoption of mobile weight management services in a virtual community: the perspective of college students. Telemed e-Health 16(4):490–497. doi:10.1089/tmj.2009.0126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Whitten P, Doolittle G, Mackert M (2005) Providers’ acceptance of telehospice. J Palliat Med 8(4):730–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mi Jung Rho
    • 1
  • Kun Ho Yoon
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hun-Sung Kim
    • 2
    • 3
  • In Young Choi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical InformaticsCatholic University of Korea College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of EndocrinologySeoul St. Mary’s Hospital, Catholic University of Korea College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  3. 3.The Catholic Institute of Ubiquitous Health CareCatholic UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations