Advertisement

The Evolution of Telehealth

  • Melinda Martin-Khan
  • Shannon Freeman
  • Kevin Adam
  • Georgia Betkus
Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

The evolution of telehealth is defined as the change of telehealth over time, and how it is developing into a system of health care delivery and exchange of information for participants over distance. The term ‘separated’ is becoming less of a key element in the current definition of telehealth as we seek to transition telehealth into an integrated mainstream health care system that is useful for people everywhere and not just for people in rural and remote locations. An integrated telehealth service enables economies of scale that ensure an affordable and efficient system which is available in a timely way, for anyone with access challenges. This ensures that the needs of people in rural and remote areas are more likely to be met but it also creates a more affordable and efficient system. We are now beginning to see that telehealth is not just a second best option if you cannot be there in person, but in some instances, telehealth is the best choice, no matter where you live.

The evolution of telehealth encompasses the time when health care was delivered exclusively in-person, through to the introduction of technology supported health consultations for people who had access challenges, to opportunities that are now available for delivering health care and exchanging health information remotely as part of a multi-faceted health care system which is delivered either in-person or online for people everywhere. Different models of telehealth have evolved to incorporate technologies into the health care system to keep pace with this change in implementation.

Keywords

Community Rural Engagement Development Users Distance Healthcare Homecare Medicine 

References

  1. Akhlaq A, McKinstry B, Muhammad KB, Sheikh A (2016) Barriers and facilitators to health information exchange in low- and middle-income country settings: a systematic review. Health Policy Plan 31(9):1310–1325. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czw056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AlDossary S, Martin-Khan MG, Bradford NK, Armfield NR, Smith AC (2017a) The development of a telemedicine planning framework based on needs assessment. J Med Syst 41(5):74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AlDossary S, Martin-Khan MG, Bradford NK, Smith AC (2017b) A systematic review of the methodologies used to evaluate telemedicine service initiatives in hospital facilities. Int J Med Inform 97:171–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barlow J, Singh D, Bayer S, Curry R (2007) A systematic review of the benefits of home telecare for frail elderly people and those with long-term conditions. J Telemed Telecare 13(4):172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Botsis T, Hartvigsen G (2008) Current status and future perspectives in telecare for elderly people suffering from chronic diseases. J Telemed Telecare 14(4):195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradford NK, Caffery LJ, Smith AC (2016) Telehealth services in rural and remote Australia: a systematic review of models of care and factors influencing success and sustainability. Rural Remote Health 16(4):1–23Google Scholar
  7. Damore LJ 2nd, Johnson JA, Dixon RS, Iverson MA, Ellison EC, Melvin WS (1999) Transmission of live laparoscopic surgery over the Internet2. Am J Surg 178(5):415–417Google Scholar
  8. Dervan PA, Wootton R (1998) Diagnostic telepathology. Histopathology 32(3):195–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eedy DJ, Wootton R (2001) Teledermatology: a review. Br J Dermatol 144(4):696–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Estai M, Bunt S, Kanagasingam Y, Kruger E, Tennant M (2016) Diagnostic accuracy of teledentistry in the detection of dental caries: a systematic review. J Evid Based Dent Pract 16(3):161–172. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2016.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fatehi F, Wootton R (2012) Telemedicine, telehealth or e-health? A bibliometric analysis of the trends in the use of these terms. J Telemed Telecare 18(8):460–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fatehi F, Smith AC, Maeder A, Wade V, Gray LC (2016) How to formulate research questions and design studies for telehealth assessment and evaluation. J Telemed Telecare:1–5Google Scholar
  13. Ferrante FE (2005) Evolving telemedicine/ehealth technology. Telemed J E-Health 11(3):370–383. doi:10.1089Google Scholar
  14. Finkelstein SM, Speedie SM, Potthoff S (2006) Home telehealth improves clinical outcomes at lower cost for home healthcare. Telemed J E-Health 12(2):128–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fiordelli M, Diviani N, Schulz PJ (2013) Mapping mHealth research: a decade of evolution. J Med Internet Res 15(5):e95–e95. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frankewitsch T, Söhnlein S, Müller M, Prokosch H-U (2005) Computed quality assessment of MPEG4-compressed DICOM video data. Stud Health Technol Inform 116:447–452Google Scholar
  17. Free C, Phillips G, Felix L, Galli L, Patel V, Edwards P (2010) The effectiveness of M-health technologies for improving health and health services: a systematic review protocol. BMC Res Notes 3(1):250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Göransson O, Pettersson K, Larsson PA, Lennernäs B (2008) Personals attitudes towards robot assisted health care – a pilot study in 111 respondents. Stud Health Technol Inform 137:56–60Google Scholar
  19. Grigsby J, Brega AG, Devore PA (2005) The evaluation of telemedicine and health services research. Telemed J E-Health 11(3):317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guy R, Hocking J, Wand H, Stott S, Ali H, Kaldor J (2012) How effective are short message service reminders at increasing clinic attendance? A meta-analysis and systematic review. Health Serv Res 47(2):614–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamine S, Gerth-Guyette E, Faulx D, Green BB, Ginsburg AS (2015) Impact of mHealth chronic disease management on treatment adherence and patient outcomes: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 17(2):e52–e52. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hersh W, Helfand M, Wallace J, Kraemer D, Patterson P, Shapiro S et al (2001) Telemedicine for the Medicare population. Evidence report/technology assessment no. 24. AHRQ publication no. 01-E012. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
  23. Hersh WR, Hickam DH, Severance SM, Dana TL, Krages KP, Helfand M (2006) Diagnosis, access and outcomes: update of a systematic review of telemedicine services. J Telemed Telecare 12(2_suppl):3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. House A, Roberts J (1977) Telemedicine in Canada. Can Med Assoc J 117(4):386Google Scholar
  25. Hui CY, Walton R, McKinstry B, Jackson T, Parker R, Pinnock H (2017) The use of mobile applications to support self-management for people with asthma: a systematic review of controlled studies to identify features associated with clinical effectiveness and adherence. J Am Med Inf Assoc 24(3):619–632. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw143 Google Scholar
  26. James J (2015) The impact of mobile phones on poverty and inequality in developing countries. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  27. Jenkins-Guarnieri MA, Pruitt LD, Luxton DD, Johnson K (2015) Patient perceptions of Telemental health: systematic review of direct comparisons to in-person psychotherapeutic treatments. Telemed J E-Health: Off J Am Telemed Assoc 21(8):652–660. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2014.0165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Joseph VV (2013) The effects of telehealth on patients with long-term conditions in routine healthcare use and lessons from practical application. In: Telehealth networks for hospital services: new methodologies. IGI Global, pp 103–120Google Scholar
  29. Kairy D, Lehoux P, Vincent C, Visintin M (2009) A systematic review of clinical outcomes, clinical process, healthcare utilization and costs associated with telerehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 31(6):427–447. doi: 10.1080/09638280802062553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klasnja P, Pratt W (2012) Healthcare in the pocket: mapping the space of mobile-phone health interventions. J Biomed Inform 45(1):184–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krupinski EA (2009) History of telemedicine: evolution, context, and transformation. Telemed E-Health 15(8):804–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee J (2013) Robots get to work. More hospitals are using automated machines, but jury’s still out on success. Mod Healthc 43(21):20–23Google Scholar
  33. Leibowitz R, Day S, Dunt D (2003) 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. Fam Pract 20(3):311–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lieberman H (1997) Autonomous interface agents. Paper presented at the proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systemsGoogle Scholar
  35. Liptrott S, Bee P, Lovell K (2017) Acceptability of telephone support as perceived by patients with cancer: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer Care. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12643
  36. Loane M, Corbett R, Bloomer S, Eedy D, Gore H, Mathews C et al (1998) Diagnostic accuracy and clinical management by realtime teledermatology. Results from the Northern Ireland arms of the UK multicentre Teledermatology trial. J Telemed Telecare 4(2):95–100Google Scholar
  37. Mair F, Whitten P (2000) Systematic review of studies of patient satisfaction with telemedicine. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed) 320(7248):1517–1520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mair FS, May C, O’Donnell C, Finch T, Sullivan F, Murray E (2012) Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic review. Bull World Health Organ 90(5):357–364. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.099424 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martin-Khan M, Wootton R, Gray L (2010) A systematic review of the reliability of screening for cognitive impairment in older adults by use of standardised assessment tools administered via the telephone. J Telemed Telecare 16(8):422–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin-Khan M, Flicker L, Wootton R, Loh P-K, Edwards H, Varghese P et al (2012) The diagnostic accuracy of Telegeriatrics for the diagnosis of dementia via video conferencing. J Am Med Dir Assoc 13(5). doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2012.03.004
  41. Martin-Khan M, Fatehi F, Kezilas M, Lucas K, Gray LC, Smith AC (2015a) Establishing a centralised telehealth service increases telehealth activity at a tertiary hospital BMC Health Serv Res 15. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-1180-x
  42. Martin-Khan M, Salih S, Rowland J, Wootton R, Gray L (2015b) General practitioners, patients, and care givers support the use of a Telegeriatric memory disorder consultation for older adults. Adv Alzheimer’s Dis 4:1–9. doi: 10.4236/aad.2015.41001
  43. McLean S, Protti D, Sheikh A (2011) Telehealthcare for long term conditions. BMJ 342:d120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Milligan C, Roberts C, Mort M (2011) Telecare and older people: who cares where? Soc Sci Med 72(3):347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mistry H (2012) Systematic review of studies of the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine and telecare. Changes in the economic evidence over twenty years. J Telemed Telecare 18(1):1–6. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2011.110505 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moyle W, Cooke M, Beattie E, Jones C, Klein B, Cook G, Gray C (2013) Exploring the effect of companion robots on emotional expression in older adults with dementia: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Gerontol Nurs 39(5):46–53. doi: 10.3928/00989134-20130313-03 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oakley A, Rademaker M, Duffill M (2001) Teledermatology in the Waikato region of New Zealand. J Telemed Telecare 7(Suppl 2):59–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Omachonu VK, Einspruch NG (2010) Innovation in healthcare delivery systems: a conceptual framework. Innov J Public Sector Innov J 15(1):1–20Google Scholar
  49. Queyroux A, Saricassapian B, Herzog D, Müller K, Herafa I, Ducoux D et al (2017) Accuracy of Teledentistry for diagnosing dental pathology using direct examination as a gold standard: results of the Tel-e-dent study of older adults living in nursing homes. J Am Med Dir Assoc 18(6):528–532. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2016.12.082
  50. Radhakrishnan K, Bo X, Jacelon CS (2016) Unsustainable Home Telehealth: a Texas qualitative study. Gerontologist 56(5):830–840. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnv050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Richardson WC, Berwick DM, Bisgard J, Bristow L, Buck C, Cassel C (2001) Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  52. Rojas SV, Gagnon M-P (2008) A systematic review of the key indicators for assessing telehomecare cost-effectiveness. Telemed J E-Health: Off J Am Telemed Assoc 14(9):896–904. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2008.0009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schlender B (2003) Intel’s Andy grove: the next battles in tech. Fortune 12:80–81Google Scholar
  54. Shulman RM, O’Gorman CS, Palmert MR (2010) The impact of telemedicine interventions involving routine transmission of blood glucose data with clinician feedback on metabolic control in youth with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Pediatr Endocrinol 2010:1–9. doi: 10.1155/2010/536957 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Theodoros D, Hill A, Hartley N, Martin-Khan M, Bird D, Russell T et al (2016) Innovation to implementation for Telehealth: a practical guide to knowledge translation in Telehealth. CRE in Telehealth, The University of Queensland, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  56. Thomas SM, Jeyaraman MM, Hodge WG, Hutnik C, Costella J, Malvankar-Mehta MS (2014) The effectiveness of teleglaucoma versus in-patient examination for glaucoma screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 9(12):e113779–e113779. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113779 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Turner AP, Sloan AP, Kivlahan DR, Haselkorn JK (2014) Telephone counseling and home telehealth monitoring to improve medication adherence: results of a pilot trial among individuals with multiple sclerosis. Rehabil Psychol 59(2):136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van den Berg N, Schumann M, Kraft K, Hoffmann W (2012) Telemedicine and telecare for older patients—a systematic review. Maturitas 73(2):94–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vieira Esteves T, Pacheco de Oliveira S (2015) Telehealth in Brazil: contemporary tool for access to health. Stud Health Technol Inform 216:995–995Google Scholar
  60. Wade VA, Eliott JA, Hiller JE (2014) Clinician acceptance is the key factor for sustainable telehealth services. Qual Health Res 24(5):682–694. doi: 10.1177/1049732314528809 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Whited JD (2006) Teledermatology research review. Int J Dermatol 45(3):220–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Williams TL, May CR, Esmail A (2001) Limitations of patient satisfaction studies in telehealthcare: a systematic review of the literature. Telemed J E-Health: Off J Am Telemed Assoc 7(4):293–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wootton R, Dornan J, Fisk NM, Harper A, Barry-Kinsella C, Kyle P et al (1997) The effect of transmission bandwidth on diagnostic accuracy in remote fetal ultrasound scanning. J Telemed Telecare 3(4):209–214Google Scholar
  64. Wootton R, Craig J, Patterson V (2006) Introduction to telemedicine, vol 206. Royal Society of Medicine Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  65. Wootton R, Bahaadinbeigy K, Hailey D (2011) Estimating travel reduction associated with the use of telemedicine by patients and healthcare professionals: proposal for quantitative synthesis in a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 11:185–195. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. World Health Organisation (2016) Global diffusion of eHealth: making universal health coverage achievable. Retrieved from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/252529/1/9789241511780-eng.pdf?ua=1

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melinda Martin-Khan
    • 1
  • Shannon Freeman
    • 2
  • Kevin Adam
    • 3
  • Georgia Betkus
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre of Research Excellence in Telehealth, Centre for Online Health, Centre for Research in Geriatric Medicine, School of MedicineThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.School of NursingUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaPrince GeorgeCanada
  3. 3.School of Health SciencesUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaPrince GeorgeCanada
  4. 4.School of Interdisciplinary StudiesUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaPrince GeorgeCanada

Personalised recommendations