Cited by 38Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationTechnology Use by Older AdultsPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

Exploring underutilization of videophones in hospice settings

Day, Michele, Demiris, George, Oliver, Debra Parker, Courtney, Karen, Hensel, Brian·2007·Telemedicine and e-Health

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate hospice providers' attitudes and perceptions regarding videophone technology in settings where the technology was introduced but underutilized. Specifically, the project seeks to provide an in-depth understanding of attitudes and perceptions that may lead to failure of a telehealth implementation in the hospice setting in the context of the technology acceptance model. Two hospice agencies were selected as a purposive sample. Both agencies had acquired videophones that were meant to be integrated into care delivery but ultimately were underutilized or never used. Interviews with staff were conducted over the telephone. The interview guide was constructed to capture staff perceptions and attitudes concerning videophone technology. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed for content analysis. A total of 17 (n = 17) participants (2 hospice administrators, 1 hospice management staff, 10 nurse case managers, and 4 social workers) were interviewed. Participants found videophones to be useful in hospice care but expressed specific practical challenges, such as lack of equipment reliability, lack of human resources, and lack of clarity pertaining to caregiver eligibility criteria. While perceived usefulness of videophones was high among respondents, practical concerns can be interpreted as lack of perceived ease of use. Findings indicate that the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) provides a good framework for an understanding of telehealth underutilization. Staff perceived that videophones were useful, but they were discouraged by their perception that the videophones were not reliable or easy to use and by their uncertainty about the cases that they were best suited for. Lessons learned are integrated into a randomized clinical trial currently under development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/tmj.2006.0023

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Day, M., Demiris, G., Oliver, D. P., Courtney, K., & Hensel, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Missouri (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Venue
Telemedicine and e-Health
Published
2007-02
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
25-32
ISSN
  • 1530-5627 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-3669
OpenAlex
W2011622226
Cited by
37
References
21
Citations by year
2022: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Telemedicine Journal and e-Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BearWorks (Missouri State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Missouri
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (T15-LM07089-14, T15LM007089)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
videophone, hospice care, technology acceptance model, employee perceptions, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, equipment reliability, nurse case managers, social workers
MeSH terms
Hospices, United States, Videoconferencing

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