Cited by 289Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareTechnology Use by Older Adults

A Review of Patient and Provider Satisfaction with Telemedicine

Open access
Nguyen, Mary, Waller, Morgan, Pandya, Aarti, Portnoy, Jay·2020·Current Allergy and Asthma Reports

Abstract

Purpose of review The purpose of this review is to describe the determinants of satisfaction with telemedicine (TM) and how they compare with in-person visits from both the perspective of patients and of providers.Recent findings The use of TM will expand only if patients and providers are at least as satisfied with it as they are with in-person visits. Since deviations from expected care can result in reduced satisfaction regardless of the quality of the visit or objective medical outcomes, it is important to understand and to help form those expectations when possible. Patients consistently report 95-100% satisfaction rate with TM when compared with in-person appointments. They tend to cite the convenience of decreased travel times and costs as the main drivers for satisfaction with TM. Providers tend to be satisfied with TM if they have input into its development, there is administrative support, the technology is reliable and easy to use, and if there is adequate reimbursement for its use. Satisfaction with TM is necessary for adoption of this new technology. To improve satisfaction it is important to consider factors that drive it both for patients and for providers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11882-020-00969-7

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nguyen, M., Waller, M., Pandya, A., & Portnoy, J.
Affiliations
Children's Mercy Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Portnoy, Jay
Venue
Current Allergy and Asthma Reports
Published
2020-09-22
Volume
20
Issue
11
Pages
72-72
ISSN
  • 1529-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1534-6315
OpenAlex
W3087219705
Cited by
289
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
7.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Allergy and Asthma Reports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
Keywords
telemedicine, patient satisfaction, provider satisfaction, in-person visits, technology adoption, travel time and cost, reimbursement, technology reliability, administrative support, patient expectations
MeSH terms
Health Personnel, Humans, Patient Satisfaction, Telemedicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review