Abstract
Advocates of telehealth argue that the delivery of health services by means of communications technologies is both feasible and desirable. Nevertheless, the benefits of telehealth, due to the variety of its applications and their uneven development, are not self-evident. The goal of this paper is to reflect on the processes by which telehealth applications do or do not contribute to the delivery of health services. We propose a framework structuring a preliminary analysis of the match between needs and the possibilities offered by telehealth. Four mechanisms of expected benefits are discussed: 1) decreasing patient transfers; 2) decreasing trips by providers and patients; 3) meeting the needs of underserved populations; and 4) building providers’ and patients’ knowledge and reducing rural isolation. We conclude by stressing that the participation of providers is crucial, both in the research on telehealth and in the steering of its evolution.
Résumé
Les promoteurs de la télésanté suggèrent que la prestation de services de santé à distance par le biais de technologies de communication est à la fois faisable et désirable. Toutefois, les avantages de la télésanté, à cause de la variété des applications et de leurs stades de développement inégaux, ne sont pas évidents. Cet article a donc pour objectif de réfléchir sur les processus par lesquels la télésanté contribue ou non à la prestation des services de santé. Nous proposons un cadre qui structure une analyse préliminaire de la concordance entre les besoins et les possibilités offertes par la télésanté. Quatre mécanismes de gains potentiels sont discutés: 1) réduction des transferts de patients; 2) réduction des déplacements des professionnels et des patients; 3) réponse aux besoins des populations sous-desservies; et 4) renforcement des connaissances des professionnels et des patients et réduction de l’isolement en région rurale. Notre conclusion souligne que la participation des professionnels est cruciale à la fois dans la recherche sur la télésanté et dans le façonnement de son évolution.
References
- 1.Institute of Medicine IOM, Committee on Evaluating Clinical Applications of Telemedicine. Telemedicine. In: Field MJ, editor. A Guide to Assessing Telecommunications in Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1996. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Standing Committee on FamilyCommunity Affairs SCFCA. Health On Line. Report into Health Information Management and Telemedicine. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Services; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 3.US Department of Commerce DoC. Telemedicine Report to the Congress. Washington, DC: National Telecommunications and Information Administration; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Conseil d’évaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec (CETS). Telehealth and Telemedicine in Quebec. Report prepared by Lehoux P, Montreal: CETS, 1999 (French version available).
- 5.Pelletier-Fleury N, Fargeon V, Lanoé JL, Falardeau M. Transaction costs economics as a conceptual framework for the analysis of barriers to the diffusion of telemedicine. Health Policy. 1997;42:1–14. doi: 10.1016/S0168-8510(97)00038-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Bashshur RL. Critical issues in telemedicine. Telemedicine J. 1997;3(2):113–26. doi: 10.1089/tmj.1.1997.3.113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Wootton R. Telemedicine: A cautious welcome. BMJ. 1996;313:1375–77. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7069.1375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Lehoux P, Sicotte C, Denis J-L, et al. Telemedicine utilization: Physicians’ perceptions in six specialities. 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lehoux P, Sicotte C, Lacroix A. Theory of use behind telehealth applications. In: Nerlich M, Kretschmer R, editors. The Impact of Telemedicine on Health Care Management. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1999. pp. 29–38. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Wyatt JC. Commentary: Telemedicine trials— clinical pull or technology push? BMJ. 1996;313:1380–81. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7069.1380. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Scott RE, Coates K, McCarthy GF. The value of an evaluation framework for telehealth initiatives. In: Nerlich M, Kretschmer R, editors. The Impact of Telemedicine on Health Care Management. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1999. pp. 39–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research AHFMR. Assessment of Telehealth Applications. Alberta: AHFMR; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kretschmer R, Nerlich M. Assessing the impact of telemedicine on health care management. In: Nerlich M, Kretschmer R, editors. The Impact of Telemedicine on Health Care Management. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1999. pp. 46–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.FinOHTA. A Model for the Assessment of Telemedicine and a Plan for Testing of the Model Within Five Specialties. 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 15.McCarthy D. The virtual health economy: Telemedicine and the supply of primary care physicians in rural America. Am J Law & Med. 1995;XXI(1):111–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Tugwell P, Bennett K, Feeny D, et al. A framework for the evaluation of technology: The Technology Assessment Iterative Loop. In: Feeny D, Guyatt G, Tugwell P, et al., editors. Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Public Policy. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy; 1986. pp. 41–56. [Google Scholar]
- 17.CEFRIO. Rapport d’évaluation des projets pilotes en télécardiologie et en téléradiologie. Quebec: Centre de santé publique de Québec et Université Laval; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Whitten P, Mair F, Collins B. Home telenursing in Kansas: Patients’ perceptions of uses and benefits. J Telemedicine and Telecare. 1997;3(supp.1):67–69. doi: 10.1258/1357633971930436. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Mairinger T, Gabl C, Derwan P, et al. What do physicians think of telemedicine? A survey in different European regions. J Telemedicine and Telecare. 1996;2(1):50–56. doi: 10.1258/1357633961929169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Puskin DS, Sanders JH. Telemedicine infrastructure development. J Med Sys. 1995;19(2):125–29. doi: 10.1007/BF02257062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Brenner RJ, Westenberg L. Film management and custody: Current and future medicolegal issues. Am J Roent. 1996;167:1371–75. doi: 10.2214/ajr.167.6.8956561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons SAGES. Guidelines for the surgical practice of telemedicine. Surgical Endoscopy. 1997;11:789–92. doi: 10.1007/s004649900453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Allaert FA, Dusserre L. Télémédecine et responsabilité médicale. Archives en Anatomie, Cytologie et Pathologie. 1995;43(4):200–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Clarke PHJ. A referrer and patient evaluation of a telespsychiatry consultation-liaison service in South Australia. J Telemedicine and Telecare. 1997;3(supp.1):12–14. doi: 10.1258/1357633971930788. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Fisk MJ. Telecare equipment in the home. Issues of intrusiveness and control. J Telemedicine and Telecare. 1997;3(supp.1):30–32. doi: 10.1258/1357633971930274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Jennett PA, Hall WG, Morin JE, Watanabe M. Evaluation of a distance consulting service based on interactive video and integrated computerized technology. J Telemedicine and Telecare. 1995;1(2):69–78. doi: 10.1177/1357633X9500100202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]