Towards a Conceptual Framework for the Evaluation of Telemedicine Satisfaction

  • Robert Garcia
  • Olayele Adelakun
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 746)


Satisfaction is a key factor in evaluating the success of telemedicine systems. The objective of this research is to develop a conceptual framework to aid research in telemedicine satisfaction. This research performs a developmental review of the telemedicine satisfaction literature obtained from PubMed and Google Scholar. Results are synthesized by reviewers using a concept matrix. Findings support a conceptual framework for telemedicine satisfaction that includes: satisfaction dimensions, stakeholders, type of care, type of system, context and methodologies. The framework can be used by future studies for examining and reporting on telemedicine satisfaction.


Telemedicine Telehealth e-health Satisfaction 


  1. 1.
    Sood, S., et al.: 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.
    Kidholm, K., et al.: A model for assessment of telemedicine applications: mast. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 28(1), 44–51 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Axelsson, K., Melin, U.: Contextual factors influencing health information systems implementation in public sector–investigating the explanatory power of critical success factors. In: International Conference on Electronic Government. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Templier, M., Paré, G.: A Framework for Guiding and Evaluating Literature Reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ekeland, A.G., Bowes, A., Flottorp, S.: Methodologies for assessing telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int. J. Med. Inf. 81(1), 1–11 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maillet, É., Mathieu, L., 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. Inf. 84(1), 36–47 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Imenda, S.: Is there a conceptual difference between theoretical and conceptual frameworks? Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi J. Soc. Sci. 38(2), 185–195 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saliba, V., et al.: Telemedicine across borders: a systematic review of factors that hinder or support implementation. Int. J. Med. Inf. 81(12), 793–809 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wade, V.A., et al.: A systematic review of economic analyses of telehealth services using real time video communication. BMC health serv. Res. 10(1), 1 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hu, P.J., et al.: Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 16(2), 91–112 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chau, P.Y., Hu, P.J.H.: Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model comparison approach. Decis. Sci. 32(4), 699–719 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jansen-Kosterink, S., Vollenbroek-Hutten, M., Hermens, H.: A renewed framework for the evaluation of telemedicine. In: 8th International Conference on eHealth, Telemedicine, and Social Medicine: eTELEMED, Venice, Italy (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ekeland, A.G., Grøttland, A.: Assessment of MAST in European patient-centered telemedicine pilots. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 31(5), 304–311 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kidholm, K., et al.: The model for assessment of telemedicine (MAST): a scoping review of empirical studies. J. Telemed. Telecare 23(9), 803–813 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Whitten, P.S., Mackert, M.S.: Addressing telehealth’s foremost barrier: provider as initial gatekeeper. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 21(04), 517–521 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Linder-Pelz, S., Struening, E.L.: The multidimensionality of patient satisfaction with a clinic visit. J. Community Health 10(1), 42–54 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Menachemi, N., Burke, D.E., Ayers, D.J.: Factors affecting the adoption of telemedicine–a multiple adopter perspective. J. Med. Syst. 28(6), 617–632 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Williams, T.L., May, C.R., Esmail, A.: Limitations of patient satisfaction studies in telehealthcare: a systematic review of the literature. Telemed. J. e-Health 7(4), 293–316 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chou, C.-Y., Brauer, D.J.: Temperament and satisfaction with health status among persons with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin. Nurse Spec. 19(2), 94–100 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vaezi, R., et al.: User satisfaction research in information systems: historical roots and approaches. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 38(27), 501–532 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mair, F., Whitten, P.: Systematic review of studies of patient satisfaction with telemedicine. BMJ 320(7248), 1517–1520 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Masino, C., 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
  23. 23.
    Whitten, P., Love, B.: Patient and provider satisfaction with the use of telemedicine: overview and rationale for cautious enthusiasm. J. Postgrad. Med. 51(4), 294 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kifle, M., et al.: 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.
    Finkelstein, S.M., et al.: Telehomecare: quality, perception, satisfaction. Telemed. J. e-health 10(2), 122–128 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weatherburn, G., et al.: 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang, S., et al.: Patient Satisfaction Evaluation of Telemedicine Applications Is Not Satisfactory. In: 13th Mediterranean Conference on Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing 2013. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kraai, I.H., et al.: Heart failure patients monitored with telemedicine: patient satisfaction, a review of the literature. J. Cardiac Fail. 17(8), 684–690 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bakken, S., et al.: 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van den Berg, M.H., Schoones, J.W., Vlieland, T.P.V.: Internet-based physical activity interventions: a systematic review of the literature. J. Med. Internet Res. 9(3), e26 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26(2), 13–23 (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kruse, C.S., et al.: Telehealth and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and narrative analysis. BMJ Open 7(8), e016242 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mounessa, J.S., et al.: A systematic review of satisfaction with teledermatology. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 1357633X17696587 (2017)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hubley, S., et al.: Review of key telepsychiatry outcomes. World J. Psychiatry 6(2), 269 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Harrison, S., et al.: Are patients with diabetes mellitus satisfied with technologies used to assist with diabetes management and coping?: a structured review. Diab. Technol. Ther. 16(11), 771–783 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Whitten, P.S., Mair, F.: Telemedicine and patient satisfaction: current status and future directions. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health 6(4), 417–423 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Collins, K., Nicolson, P., Bowns, I.: Patient satisfaction in telemedicine. Health Inf. J. 6(2), 81–85 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hasselberg, M., et al.: 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Piga, M., et al.: Telemedicine for patients with rheumatic diseases: Systematic review and proposal for research agenda. In: Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism. Elsevier, Rockville (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Iseli, M.A., Kunz, R., Blozik, E.: Instruments to assess patient satisfaction after teleconsultation and triage: a systematic review. Patient Prefer. adherence 8, 893 (2014)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Leibowitz, R., Day, S., 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. Fam. Pract. 20(3), 311–317 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DePaul UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations