Table 4.

Analysis of Resident and Family Perspectives in Accordance with the Technology Acceptance Model

Concept	Facilitators and Benefits	Barriers and Disadvantages
Experience	•Technical, privacy, and comfort met (Perri et al14) •Feel comfortable and respected during visit (Perri et al14)	—
Output quality	•Visual and audio quality rated as excellent (Cheng et al24)	—
Result demonstrability	•Willing to use it again (Perri et al14) •Some patients did not want intervention to end (Dadosky et al35)	—
Perceived usefulness	•Measured by TeSS (Cheng et al24) •Ability of family to join patient in consultation (Cheng et al24) •Potential to include family in decision to transfer to hospital and increase trust in provider decision (Stephens et al34) •Liked activity monitor because it also served as a watch (De Vito et al36)	—
Perceived ease of use	•Measured by TUQ (Cheng et al24)	•Bothered by changing battery, charging the tablet, taking daily vital signs (Dadosky et al35)
Intention to use	•Would prefer videoconference if it meant their loved one could be seen by palliative care faster, or more often than in person visits (Perri et al14) •Be able to see provider sooner, increase trust in NH (Stephens, et al34) •Residents enjoyed comparing the number of steps they took (De Vito et al36)	•Prefer to see provider in person if given option (Perri et al14) •Some residents appeared neutral or had no awareness of activity monitor (De Vito et al36)
Usage behavior	•88% daytime compliance wearing activity monitor (De Vito et al36)	•Difficulty connecting to Wi-Fi or 4G connections (Dadosky et al35)

4G, fourth-generation broadband cellular; TeSS, Telemedicine Satisfaction Scale; TUQ, Telemedicine Usability Questionnaire; Wi-Fi, wireless fidelity.